Agenda item

Farm diversification project for the siting of 5 holiday accommodation units on the land

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John Pughe Roberts

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

 

TO UNDERTAKE A SITE VISIT

 

Farm diversification plan for the siting of 5 holiday accommodation units on the land

 

.a)        The ⁠Development Control Team Leader highlighted that ⁠ it was an application for land use change and the development of new holiday accommodation in the form of 5 permanent glamping pods, associated parking, modifications to the entrance, drainage and landscaping.  It was explained that in dealing with the application the proposal was revised by reducing the size of the site and the number of pods from 6 to 5; the site was situated in the countryside and within a Special Landscape Area (SLA) with one residential property adjoining the site and an external building not owned by the applicant to the east of the existing entrance.

 

Given the type of pods and location of the application within the SLA, it was highlighted that point 1 of policy TWR 3 confirmed that proposals to develop new static caravan sites, new holiday chalet sites or permanent alternative camping accommodation within the Anglesey or Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and within the SLA will be refused; the proposal was therefore fundamentally contrary to point 1 of policies TWR 3 and PCYFF 1 as it would establish a new permanent alternative camping site within the SLA.

 

In the context of general and residential matters, it was explained that the nearest dwelling house to the site was located at the bottom of the track which would be used by the users of the proposed holiday units and more or less abutted the application site's southern boundary. Currently, this dwelling house is surrounded by agricultural fields and the river and is in a relatively private and quiet location where there is little activity and disturbance for the occupants of the property. Introducing an alternative camping site at this location would have the potential to cause unacceptable detrimental impact on nearby property due to increased activity, noise and disturbance by visitors. It was added that the nature of holiday use entailed different movements to static residential units, and the applicant does not live on the site in terms of being able to supervise and manage the site and respond to any issues or problems that may arise at the time. It was considered that the proposal was contrary to the requirements of criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2 on the grounds of impact on the amenities of the neighbours.

 

Attention was drawn to highways, biodiversity, archaeological, sustainability, flooding, drainage and linguistic matters which had received appropriate attention and the proposal was considered acceptable in this regard, but it was stressed that this did not overcome the fundamental objection to the proposal as the establishment of a new permanent alternative camping site within the SLA would be contrary to policy.

 

The officers recommended that the application be refused

 

.b)             Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following observations:

·        That the proposal was an attempt to diversify the farm

·        One of three daughters from a Welsh family, third generation on the farm with a desire to stay and start a family in Corris

·        The small farm was 300 acres and needed diversification and the establishment of a new venture and additional income to secure the farm's future. Farming was difficult now with rules and constant changes

·        SLA was a land classification that had been left out of the Eryri National Park, but had recently been designated as an area that was not to be developed.

·        All the farm's land was located within the SLA and there was no choice but to diversify.

·        PCYFF 2: Disturbance to neighbours – one nearby property and therefore the units had been moved 70 m away from that property

·        In addition to reducing unit numbers, there had been no contact from the Officers regarding an acceptable suitable distance. 70m with screening against noise and light pollution was more than acceptable – these were the requirements for residential accommodation

·        The proposal was supported by a number of national policies and complied with most Local Development Plan policies

·        That a Community Council meeting was held and a number of local people were in favour of the development and no one objected, but since then several objections had been received from people who had moved into the area who were second home or Airbnb owners who do not want any competition

·        Overpopulation in Corris from Airbnb’s. The creation of bespoke holiday units would reduce demand for local housing use as holiday units which in accordance with Article 4 would free-up homes for local first time buyers.

·        The initiative would benefit the village of Corris – the village and local businesses

·        That the proposal met the requirements of policies relating to the appearance and setting within the landscape and had been designed to a high level. This was the best site on the farm as it had good links to public footpaths

·        The Committee's support was encouraged to diversify the business so that a local family can stay local and the need to create a future for the farm

 

.c)         Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member noted the following comments;

·     That Parc Eryri was supportive of Sustainable Tourism for rural farms

·     That more guidance was needed for initial assessments to ensure the viability of the plan

·     That officers were prepared to grant an application for 25 unsupported holiday cabins, but rejected an application for 5 locally supported cabins

·     Diversification would ensure a future and security for the family

·     The cabins would blend into the landscape, sleeping two persons. The cabins would be installed 70m away from nearby property, would be well screened and hidden

·     It was intended to plant trees that would enhance biodiversity and species

·     That the Community Council and local people were supportive and although a few had objected, they did not live locally. A number had highlighted their support for the application

·     It was intended to use the names of the farm's fields on the pods – this was welcomed

·     The proposal would support local businesses; direct routes from the site to the village; would benefit the village and the area's businesses; would not impede the parking problems in the village

·     A good link to the area's walking trails and the Dyfi cycle route

·     There was no excess of holiday accommodation in the area – no glamping pods within 10m of the site

·     That the Gwynedd and Eryri's Sustainable Visitor Economy Plan 2035 supported diversification for farmers to create a stronger rural economy

·     Biodiversity unit responded that the bat report was of good quality

·     The grounds for the refusal was the position of the site within the SLA. What exactly is the designation of a Special Landscape Area? Corris was not within the National Park because it was too industrial, but more recently had been designated as an SLA.

·     Adverse impact on nearby occupier's property - 70m away from the property, trees would be planted and would be well screened and hidden

·     The committee was encouraged to support the application - a young, local family's need to farm in the area. Too many young people were leaving the County due to the lack of opportunities.

 

   ch)    It was proposed and seconded to conduct a site visit to justify the impact on nearby residential amenities

 

.d)         During the ensuing discussion, the following comments were made by Members:

·        There was a need to review policies to work better to support the County's communities – there was a need for flexibility in the process (comparing applications 5.1. and 5.3 which discriminate between local need)

·        Had the landowner been contacted prior to granting a SLA designation for the area? Was there consultation with the community prior to its designation as an SLA? What was the meaning of this status in this setting?

·        Policy AMC 2 highlights that 'it is proposed within the SLA, that due consideration be given to the scale and nature of the development ensuring that it will not have an adverse impact...' doesn't AMC 2 give additional discretion when considering Policy TWR 3?

 

In response to a question, whether pods, when considering planning issues, correspond to touring caravans, it was noted that Policies TWR 2 and 3 distinguish between touring and static caravans. In this context, it was highlighted that the pods are physically connected to the ground with water and electricity services and are therefore considered to be static. In response to a supplementary question as to whether the pods could be taken down over the winter months, and this may be acceptable, it was noted that these were not the requirements of the application submitted, but Policy TWR 2 would not prevent development within the SLA landscape.

 

In response to the above comments and planning considerations, it was noted that it should not be considered who submits an application and each application should be considered on its own merits and within local and national policies. It was stressed that while the ability to be flexible in weighing-up some planning decisions, the establishment of a new permanent alternative camping site within the SLA would be completely contrary to policy TWR 3.

 

In terms of the SLA status in Corris, a public consultation would have taken place during the LDP consultation when the landscape was assessed in terms of capacity to receive permanent tourist accommodation while also identifying sensitive areas. The result of that assessment was that the quality of the landscape had been identified as SLA and that this area, like AONB areas, had an excess of caravans and permanent accommodation and therefore a policy had been formulated to protect the sensitivity of those areas.

 

RESOLVED: To undertake a site visit.