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

DECISION: To refuse in line with the recommendation

 

Reasons:

 

·        The proposal would create new permanent alternative camping accommodation within a Special Landscape Area and is therefore contrary to point 1 of policy TWR 3 as well as PCYFF 1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (2011-2026) which protects the Special Landscape Area from this type of development.

 

·        The proposal is contrary to criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan as it would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of local property owners in terms of more activities, disturbance and noise. 

 

DECISION: To refuse in line with the recommendation

 

Reasons:

 

·        The proposal would create new permanent alternative camping accommodation within a Special Landscape Area and is therefore contrary to point 1 of policy TWR 3 as well as PCYFF 1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (2011-2026) which protects the Special Landscape Area from this type of development.

 

·        The proposal is contrary to criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan as it would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of local property owners in terms of more activities, disturbance and noise. 

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

 

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

 

a)          The Development Control Team Manager highlighted that this was an application to change the use of the land and develop new holiday accommodation in the form of 5 permanent glamping pods, associated parking, adaptations to the access, drainage and landscaping. ⁠ ⁠ It was reiterated that the site was in the countryside and within a Special Landscape Area. To the south of the site was afon Dulas, and the topography of the site slanted down from the road towards the river, and the units would be located on the slope above the river. It was reported that residential property abutted the site as well as one exterior building not in the ownership of the applicant, near the existing access.

 

It was explained that the pods were the type which meant that policy TWR 3 applied. Attention was drawn to point 1 policy TWR 3, which confirms that proposals for the development of new static caravan sites, holiday chalet sites or permanent alternative camping accommodation will be refused within the Anglesey Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Special Landscape Areas. In light of this, the proposal was fundamentally contrary to point 1 of policy TWR 3 and policy PCYFF 1 as it would establish a new permanent alternative camping site within a Special Landscape Area.

 

It was highlighted 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. Currently, agricultural fields and a river surrounded this dwelling house, which was in a relatively private, still and tranquil location where there was not much activity and disturbance caused to the property's occupants. 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. The nature of holiday use involved different movements to permanent residential units, and the applicant did not live on the site to be 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.

 

In the context of highways, biodiversity, archaeological, sustainability, flooding, drainage and linguistic matters, it was noted that they had received appropriate attention, and the proposal was considered acceptable in this regard, but it was noted that this did not overcome the fundamental objection to the proposal on the grounds of the principle that it was located within a Special Landscape Area.

 

The officers recommended that the application be refused.

 

b)       Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the following observations:

·      That their home, Pandy, near the site, was an old mill, which was full of character.

·      The property had been purchased with the assurance that it was protected from development.

·      That the property was in a secluded site as they both enjoyed wildlife and dark skies.

·      That the applicant had bought the field in 2023 and that concerning comments had been made at that time.

·      It would not be possible to control the users of the pods as the applicant did not live on the site.

·      The area outside their house would be used as a vehicle turning area - this, at night, would fill the house with light.

·      Walkers along the railway path would look down into their property.

·      Noise was likely.

·      If there were problems, people staying in the pods would go to Pandy.

·      There would be strangers in the area, causing disturbance.

·      Asked the Committee to keep to the policy and refuse the application.

 

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

·        That there was a public footpath above and below Pandy.

·        Trees would be planted to mitigate against the visual impact.

·        A full consultation had not been held when establishing the SLA - this raised concern about future developments.

·        Supported the application - the family were a local Welsh family.

·        The applicant lived near the site.

 

ch)    It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation.

 

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

·        There were five pods here and therefore there would be no large crowds.

·        That farming was a part of the countryside and farmers had to diversify a little.

·        The paths nearby were public footpaths.

·        That tourism was essential to the local economy.

·        That sustainable tourism gave farmers a future.

·        That there would not be a substantial detrimental impact on the privacy of Pandy.

·        If approved, conditions would be required to manage the impacts of noise and lighting.

·        Only one policy was not being met here; the development met many other policies.

·        The site was not visible - it could not be seen from the highway.

·        It was not an over-development.

·        That the Community Council had met four times to discuss the proposal, and it supported the development.

·        A risk that approving could set a precedent.

·        That Policy TWR 3 was critical to the principles of protecting special landscapes.

 

dd)    In response to a question about the pods being mobile ones, and whether this would be acceptable in terms of the land designation, it was noted that this was not requested in the application submitted, but with the flexibility of Policy TWR 2, this could be considered.

 

In response to the above comments and planning considerations, the Assistant Head of Department noted that every application was being 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 status of the SLA in Corris, the quality of the landscape had been identified as a Special Landscape Area and that this area, like AONB areas, had an excess of permanent caravans and accommodation, therefore the policy had been drawn up to protect the sensitivity of those areas. He reiterated that the Committee had to be consistent when making its decisions and if the application was approved, it would have to be referred to a cooling-off period.

 

e)     The members voted on the proposal to approve the application. The proposal fell.

 

f)       It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.

 

RESOLVED: To refuse in line with the recommendation.

 

Reasons:

 

·        The proposal would create new permanent alternative camping accommodation within a Special Landscape Area and is therefore contrary to point 1 of policy TWR 3 as well as PCYFF 1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (2011-2026) which protects the Special Landscape Area from this type of development.

 

·        The proposal is contrary to criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan as it would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of local property owners in terms of more activities, disturbance and noise.