Agenda item

Holiday accommodation (amended scheme) involving :-

·        Installation of bases for lodges with associated decking.

·        Installation of bases for glamping pods.

·        Associated infrastructure to include internal roads, parking areas, sustainable and foul drainage systems

·        Soft and hard landscaping to include the felling of some trees,  retention of and undertake improvements to the existing woodland.

·        Erection of reception/sales building and re-cladding of existing building for use as a cycle and e-bike hub with electric charging points.

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Beca Roberts

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse, contrary to the recommendation

 

Reasons:

Contrary to TWR Policy 3 Part 1 criteria that the site would lead to an excess of permanent caravan sites or chalet sites or permanent alternative camping sites in the local area which would cause an adverse visual impact and an adverse impact on the amenities of the area and local residents due to disturbance.

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

 

Some Members had visited the site on 12-05-25.

 

Holiday accommodation development (revised plan) which entails:-

·        Laying the foundations for lodges with associated decking.

·        Laying the foundations for glamping pods.

·        Associated infrastructure to include internal tracks, parking areas, sustainable drainage systems together with foul water drainage.

·        Soft and hard landscaping including felling some trees, retaining trees and undertaking improvements to the existing woodland.

·        ⁠Construct a reception/sales building together with re-covering the existing building and use as an ⁠e-cycle hub with electric charging points.

 

a)     The Development Control Team Leader highlighted that this was a full application to provide holiday accommodation and associated works within an existing woodland to the south-east of the village of Glasinfryn. ⁠It was expressed that since the application was originally submitted in 2018, the development had been revised and reduced several times and the number of units had now been reduced to 25 holiday lodges and 4 glamping pods.

 

It was noted that the woodland, which forms the boundary with the Class III road towards Glasinfryn, was subject to a Tree Protection Order with the remainder of the site being a candidate Wildlife Site.

 

Reference was made to policy TWR 3 which allows proposals to develop new static caravan or new chalet sites, or permanent alternative camping accommodation outside Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Areas, subject to relevant criteria.

 

It was reported that the first criterion specifically referred to an excess of new development, and a 'Landscape Capacity and Sensitivity Study in Anglesey, Gwynedd and the Eryri National Park' to define excess for this site. It was reiterated that the Study identified some capacity for minor to very small developments outside the sites contributing to the Eryri National Park setting within this particular Landscape Character Area, with the Study defining 'very small' developments as those up to 10 units and 'small' developments as between 10 - 25 units. Although the number of units subject to this application was 29 and recognising that this figure was higher than what is defined as a minor development in the Study, consideration was given to the average capacity of areas rather than individual locations, and consideration of the site as being hidden. To this end, it was considered that there was sufficient capacity for the site in this particular area, and as it was an already well-screened non-invasive site it also complied with the second criterion.

 

In the context of the criterion which refers to the provision of adequate access without significant impairment on the attributes and character of the landscape, together with ensuring that the site is close to the main road network, it was noted that an entrance to the site currently exists with an intention to improve it and provide a visibility splay to the satisfaction of the Transportation Unit as well as protecting the hedge which is subject to the Tree Protection Order.

 

Reference was made to the contents of the detailed impact assessment on the amenities of nearby residents, but ultimately and based on the distance and hidden nature of the site, it was not considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on nearby residents. It was also confirmed that there had been significant discussion about concerns and impacts on trees and biodiversity, and that several assessments and surveys had been submitted together with a commitment to provide a plan to manage the site which would include improvements. The surveys submitted were considered to reflect the current situation of the site and highlight the need to manage the woodland to secure the future of the habitat and the biodiversity within it. It was reported that the site had not been designated as a site of National importance. It was acknowledged that this was a wildlife site, but it was considered that the applicant had addressed the needs of the site and as a result the development would be managed and enhanced subject to planning conditions. Therefore, the proposal was considered acceptable in the context of impact on amenities subject to appropriate conditions which would ensure appropriate control, mitigation and improvement measures.

 

Sustainability, flooding, infrastructure and linguistic issues were referred to stating that they had received appropriate attention, and the proposal was acceptable in relation to those issues.

 

The officers recommended to approve the application with conditions.

 

b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following observations:

·        That she encouraged the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds of it being an over-development.

·        That there was reference to the site as a 'small and suitable' one, but this was for 29 units, which was far from 'small'.

·        That the application reflected good accessibility and had a good network of roads and public transport - this was wrong - a bus only ran past the site three times a week.

·        That the site was close to a busy and dangerous road - an increase in vehicles would worsen the situation and increase noise levels. These conditions were unsuitable for holiday accommodation.

·        That the report stated 'no static caravans in the area' - this was incorrect: within 3km of the site there were several caravan / holiday accommodation sites.

·        Despite reference being made to two jobs being created, there were no guarantees that these would be permanent or high-salary jobs.

·        While noting a local benefit, the welcome pack which would be left for visitors encouraged them to shop on-line which would reduce the need for them to travel off-site; Large companies would benefit from this and not local shops.

·        The main objective was to secure a high-salary economy by creating a net benefit for the County's communities. It was difficult to see what the net benefit would be here.

 

c)     It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application, contrary to the recommendation.

 

Reasons: Contrary to Policy TWR 3.1 - excess of provision in the area which will lead to disturbance and an amenity and visual impact on local residents.

'Small' and 'very small' capacity study - no reference to average size - these were large, luxurious units.

 

ch)    During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:

·        That the site visit had been very valuable.

·        That the units were large - big enough for two families. Bungalow-sized!

·        That the Community Council was concerned about the privacy and amenities of the Maes Infryn residents.

·        Concern about the number of trees that will need to be felled.

·        That many objections had been received via e-mail.

·        There was a need to listen to the voice of the community.

·        That the company was a large company - the development would bring benefits to the local economy.

·        That the company had a site in Ceredigion.

·        That conditions were being imposed for roads and access.

·        The site was not visible, it was a wonderful site.

 

In response to the observations, the Assistant Head of Department noted that the proposal complied with the relevant policies, and should the Committee decide to refuse the application, the proposer and seconder would have to defend the decision should an appeal be lodged.

 

RESOLVED: To refuse, contrary to the recommendation.

 

Reasons:

To refuse on the grounds of Policy TWR 3 Part 1 criterion i, that the site would lead to an excess of static caravan sites or chalet sites or permanent alternative camping sites in the local area, which would cause a detrimental visual impact and a detrimental impact on the amenities of the area and local residents due to the disturbance caused.