Agenda item

Change of use of an agricultural field to accommodate 10 seasonal touring caravan pitches additional to the main site, the erection of a toilet block, soft landscape improvements.

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Williams

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

DECISION:

To delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to refuse - reasons:

 

1.    This development would not be located in an unobtrusive location that would be completely screened by existing landscape features and landscaping proposals, it would be harmful to the quality of the landscape and it would not integrate appropriately to its location in open countryside. In addition, the proposal would not contribute to the maintenance, enhancement or restoration of the recognised character of the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policies TWR 5, PCYFF 4 and AMG 1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan.

2. Insufficient information had been submitted as part of the planning application to enable the Local Planning Authority, as the competent authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), to undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of the project for the Pen Llŷn and Sarnau Special Area of Conservation. The proposal therefore does not show that the proposal would protect or improve the natural environment and therefore the application is contrary to the requirements of Policies PS 19 and AMG 5 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026. 

3. Insufficient evidence has been submitted as part of the planning application to demonstrate that full consideration has been given to the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. The proposal therefore is considered to be contrary to the requirements of criteria 6 of Policy PS 6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and advice provided in paragraphs 3.58 and 3.59 of Planning Policy Wales. 

 

 

4. The proposal as submitted entails the use of a sub-standard entrance and the use of a second entrance without restriction. It is considered that the proposal is unacceptable and contrary to the requirements of policy TRA 4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan which confirms that proposals that would cause unacceptable harm to the safe and efficient operation of the highway will be rejected.

5. No drainage statement has been submitted as part of the application, and therefore insufficient information has been submitted to be able to confirm that the proposal complies with the requirements of part 7 of TAN 15: ⁠Development, flooding and coastal erosion (2025) in terms of providing a sustainable drainage system.

6. The site is partially located within a C2 and C3 Flood Zone for surface water and minor watercourses as noted by the 'Flood Map for Planning'. No Assessment of Flood Consequences has been submitted as part of the application and the application means providing a new, very vulnerable development on ground floor level and therefore the proposal does not comply with the requirements of paragraphs 6.1, 10.19 or 10.20 of Technical Advice Note 15: ⁠Development, flooding and coastal erosion (2025) that ensures that very vulnerable developments are not located within flood zones where they would cause a risk to life.  ⁠

 

Full application for the change of use of an agricultural field to accommodate 10 seasonal touring caravan pitches additional to the main site, the erection of a toilet/shower block, soft landscape improvements, proposed entrance/exit and installation of treatment plant.

 

a)           The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application relating to extending the existing caravan site into agricultural land nearby. It was explained that there was planning permission for a separate site of 39 touring caravans on fields to the north and north-east of the application site together with an area north of the existing application site which had been granted under reference C16/0878/30/LL to store up to 15 touring caravans throughout the year. The remainder of the site consisted of agricultural buildings, outbuildings and two residential dwellings. 

 

It was noted that the entire site was situated in the open countryside and within the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and within the Llŷn and Enlli Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest, and partly within Flood Zone 2/3 (Surface Water and Small Watercourses) as shown in the Flood Map for Planning. The site is served by an unclassified road that runs parallel to the farm and the existing caravan site.  The development site would be partly within the Porth Meudwy wildlife site.

 

It was pointed out that there were established hedges on some of the verges of the site, particularly the western boundary with the public road. The land where the development was located had been described as existing agricultural land which was included within class 3a according to Welsh Government maps which meant that lands within class 3a along with class 1 and 3 lands were identified as the best and most versatile agricultural lands. In this case, it was identified as "good to moderate quality agricultural land".

 

The application was submitted to Committee as the site was larger in size than could be determined under the delegated procedure. It was reiterated that the proposal had been the subject of a planning application under reference C24/0413/30/LL, but the applicant had withdrawn the application before it reached the Planning Committee on 30.09.2024.

 

It was reported that there were plans to create additional formal pitches to an existing site for 10 seasonal touring caravans along with the erection of a toilet/shower building, soft landscaping improvements, the creation of a proposed entrance/exit and the installation of treatment plant. Landscaping would take the form of planting a small coppice near the lowest side of the second entrance to the field in the southern part of the site while a new hedge would be planted to the rear of the proposed toilet block. It was highlighted that there was an existing hedge along the field boundary with the parallel public road, and the intention would be to manage this hedge and create an area of long grass between the hedge and the location of the 10 new pitches within the field.

 

In the context of the principle of development, it was noted that policy TWR 5 of the LDP required any touring caravan development to be readily assimilated into the landscape in a way that did not significantly harm the visual quality of the landscape. This development would be unavoidably harmful to this landscape within the AONB, and this was supported by the observations of the AONB Unit.

 

Although acknowledging the points made by the applicant in the additional information, including the landscape evaluation submitted, it did not change the fact that the site was visible in the landscape and that the extension in question would be in an entirely separate location to the existing touring caravan site near the farm. It was not considered that the extension to the site would be totally hidden by the existing features of the landscape and it was not considered that the proposal would integrate well with its surroundings. As a result, it was not considered that the proposal would do anything to maintain, enhance or restore the recognised character of the AONB and therefore the proposal was contrary to the requirements of Policies TWR 5, PCYFF 4 and AMG 1 of the LDP.     

 

In the context of biodiversity issues, it was highlighted that insufficient information had been submitted as part of the application to enable the Local Planning Authority, as the competent authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), to undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of the project for the Pen Llŷn and Sarnau Special Area of Conservation. The proposal therefore failed to show that it would protect or improve the natural environment and therefore the application was contrary to the requirements of Policies PS 19 and AMG 5 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan.

 

In addition, insufficient evidence was submitted as part of the planning application to show that full consideration had been given to the impact of the loss of 'best and most versatile agricultural land'. The application was contrary to the requirements of criterion 6 of Policy PS 6 of the LDP together with the advice provided in paragraphs 3.58 and 3.59 of Planning Policy Wales. 

 

In the context of transport and access issues, it was highlighted that concerns had arisen in relation to the main entrance to the proposed site, in particular due to the potential for mud and loose material to be transported onto the public highway, as well as the potential for damage to the roadsides as a result of the increased traffic using the entrance. In order to mitigate these impacts and in the interest of highway safety, the Highways Unit had requested the applicant to upgrade the entrance to an appropriate and satisfactory standard and provide details of the proposed works, as well as restricting the second entrance to pedestrian and emergency services vehicle use only. It was considered that this would be a means of controlling incoming traffic movements and out of the premises, ensuring that all normal traffic used the main entrance which had been upgraded to an acceptable standard. The proposal was considered unacceptable and contrary to the requirements of policy TRA 4 of the LDP which confirmed that proposals that would cause unacceptable harm to the safe and efficient operation of the highway would be refused.

 

It was highlighted that a drainage statement had not been submitted as part of the application, and sufficient information had not been submitted to ensure that the proposal complied with the requirements of part 7 of Technical Advice Note (TAN) 15: Development, flooding and coastal erosion; the application was considered to be contrary to this policy. ⁠It was explained that the site of the proposed development was partly located within Flood Zone 2/3 (Surface Water and Small Watercourses) as shown in the Flood Map for Planning. Again, a Flood Risk Assessment was not submitted as part of the application and therefore it could not be certain that the proposal would not be at an unacceptable risk of surface water flooding and therefore the application as submitted was contrary to the requirements of Section 6.1 TAN 15: Development, flooding and coastal erosion. ⁠

 

In addition, the advice given within TAN 15 stated that sites should not be set aside for very vulnerable new developments (which included residential developments including touring caravans) as flood risk and consequences were not considered acceptable for these types of development within flood zone 3. In a situation where the proposal was acceptable in terms of all relevant LDP policies and where it did not provide residential use on a first floor, developments may be suitable within flood zone 2. To this end, the proposal did not comply with the requirements of TAN 15.

 

It was recognised that there was full awareness of the economic situation in the countryside and one that was related to agriculture in terms of the seriousness of ensuring economic viability. It was noted that the principle of new development that would contribute towards improving the local economy was fully supported. However, this did not mean that any proposal submitted could be granted, and that proposals must fully comply with the relevant requirements of policies that protect a highly sensitive area such as this from unacceptable new developments.

 

The officers recommended that the application be refused.

 

b)           Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant's daughter in law made the following observations:

·        The enterprise was not known as a large enterprise for touring caravans nor was it trying to be one

·        They were a local, third generation family caring for the land that had provided a camping service since the 60s and wished to continue to serve future generations

·        Local architects, ecologists and landscape architects had been appointed to prepare the application on their behalf so that it met requirements.

·        They had contacted the Council for suggestions to ensure the application met requirements – it was not a quick, easy or cheap process but they had followed advice

·        It was a small narrow field that was difficult to maintain and fully operate to modern agricultural standards 

·        It was a secluded site already well screened, and private. It was neither obvious nor did it negatively impact the quality of the area's recognised national landscape. There was no need for screening as the site was in a natural dip in the land – below road level

·        In order to comply with Council and ecologists' policies, a proposal had been made to plant trees to strengthen the existing hedges

·        That it was intended to use the existing site entrance and therefore no further modifications were needed to the highway

·        An agricultural style toilet block was included in the application

·        Having touring caravans on site ensured that the land would contribute to the overall productivity of the farm

·        Approving the application would benefit the family – in a time of economic uncertainty diversification would give them financial stability

·        The proposal would contribute to the wider local economy.

 

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

·        That the farm was 70 acres; it was the third generation of the family that had been farming and milking 50 cows

·        Like many farms in Aberdaron (large and small), one common element was that they all diversified with caravan sites

·        In 1950 the farm had been granted planning permission to keep caravans; in 1994 permission was obtained for building facilities; permission had been granted for 30 touring units in 1996; this was increased to 39 in 2016.

·        Some of the families who stayed there had been returning for 40 years, with some being third generation

·        There was no empty pitch on the site –there were 8 families on the waiting list – this was proof that Tir Glyn was an effectively run site with a clear demand for pitches.

·        The land was described as 'class 3a land according to Welsh Government maps. 3a lands, are identified as the best and most versatile agricultural land and in this case, it was identified as ‘good to moderate quality land'. Although the category was not disputed, this was a thin strip of land located between the main road and Porth Meudwy - grazing was only possible and difficult to handle with large machinery - spreading slurry on it would pose a risk of pollution with a small stream running along the side of the field down to Porth Meudwy.

·        If it were good, useful agricultural land, the farmer would not consider it for caravans as it was far too valuable for farming

·        Confirming that the Community Council had submitted observations and supported the application - no observations or complaints were received from local, neighbouring residents during the public consultation as the extension would not affect many people

·        The site was 1m below the road with a thick, natural thorn 'clawdd' screening the field

·        It was disappointing that the officers had asked for more information and that there was a lack of evidence - the applicant was under the impression that all the information had been submitted by the agent

·        'Protect and enhance the natural environment' - the land was at least 1m below the main road and was naturally screened. This was an application asking for 10 units - a neighbour would have the right to let 5 units without a planning application under Caravan Club rules

·        'Impact of losing the best land use' - the farmer probably knew about the quality of the land better than officers? This was a thin strip of land between a road and a cliff. They did not benefit from it as agricultural land and it was therefore perfect for extending the caravan park

·        The reference to two entrances was incorrect – one entrance would be used, which was the main entrance to the field; the applicant was willing to completely close off the second entrance or install a fence if half of the field needed to be retained as pasture

·        'Concern about mud and loose material being transported onto the highway and potential for roadside damage to the road verges due to increased traffic' - this was disappointing. A concrete road down to the site that was very tidy. The main entrance would also be concrete. Concern about road verges being weak – the use was seasonal from March until September.

·        The applicant had already donated a piece of land to Cyngor Gwynedd to widen the road and create a passing point – this was directly opposite the entrance, which was now an entrance with a clear splay and views to both sides

·        Accepting the observations regarding the lack of drainage response – the applicant was happy to commission a drainage survey and offered a means of imposing a condition for this if it was determined to grant the application.

·        The housing crisis had hit the area hard. Wouldn't it be better for visitors to stay in a caravan over the summer months rather than buying a house in the village and leaving it empty for half a year?

·        Visitors not only supported the farm – they also contributed and supported the local economy – the local restaurants, butcher and bakery

·        That the Pen Draw Llŷn Ward was one of the most rural areas in the County; the position of agriculture was fragile and uncertain and so this was the time for the Council to do everything within its power to support farmers

·        The Committee was asked to support the application for the extension of the mobile caravan site for an additional 10 units; 10 units that would be invisible due to the nature of the field which is below the main road and was well screened. 10 units that would be installed on the pitches from March until the end of September with the field returning to grassland over the winter months. This was not Haven or Warren!

·        Implored the Committee to support the application and to support a local farming family from Uwchmynydd who were working hard to preserve the farm and to give the next generation a farming future at Tir Glyn.

 

ch)    It was proposed and seconded that the application should be refused in accordance with the recommendation

 

d)           During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were noted by Members:

·        The application was not a complete application - information was missing and it may be possible to visit the site in the future

·        The site was outside the development boundary

·        It was good agricultural land

·        That the Local Member's strong points in supporting farmers need to be considered

 

In response to a suggestion to defer so that the applicant could submit the information, it was noted that a similar application had been submitted by the applicant two years ago with a recommendation to refuse, but the application had been withdrawn at the last minute by the applicant. It was highlighted that the same reasons for refusal had been listed for that application (apart from drainage requirements which had changed due to national changes), and therefore it was suggested that both the applicant and the agent were aware of the information required.

 

In response to a suggestion that a site visit should be held, the Assistant Head of Service noted that six reasons for refusal had been listed, and that only one related to visual matters (specifically due to the AONB). The Monitoring Officer reiterated that there were gaps in the information submitted, and until those matters had been recognised, it would be premature to conduct a site visit.

 

In response to a question about the reasons for refusal, the Assistant Head of Service briefly highlighted the reasons:

·        the visual impact on the AONB (would the development be detrimental to the quality of the landscape?)

·        a lack of information from the perspective of environmental issues (would there be an impact or not on the nearby Conservation Area?)

·        the agricultural aspect of the loss of good agricultural land (although accepting the Local Member's comments)

·        the entrance was sub-standard (the Highways Unit was not satisfied with the existing entrance, but accepted the Local Member's comment that a solution was possible, although no information had been received)

·        the drainage statement was a new additional requirement

·        a flood impact assessment had not been submitted.

He reiterated that the reasons for refusal were matters whereby their impact needed to be fully understood before imposing appropriate conditions. Should visual issues offer themselves as the only reason for refusing the application, then there would be a justification for conducting a site visit. Given that there were five other technical points to be considered as reasons for refusal, there was insufficient basis for conducting a site visit.

 

RESOLVED: To delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to refuse:

 

1.    This development would not be in an unobtrusive location that would be completely screened by existing landscape features and landscaping proposals, it would be harmful to the quality of the landscape and it would not integrate appropriately to its location in open countryside. In addition, the proposal would not contribute to the maintenance, enhancement or restoration of the recognised character of the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policies TWR 5, PCYFF 4 and AMG 1 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan.

2. Insufficient information has been submitted as part of the planning application to enable the Local Planning Authority, as the competent authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), to undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of the project for the Pen Llŷn and Sarnau Special Area of Conservation. The proposal therefore does not show that it would protect or improve the natural environment and therefore the application is contrary to the requirements of Policies PS 19 and AMG 5 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026. 

3. Insufficient evidence has been submitted as part of the planning application to demonstrate that full consideration has been given to the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. The proposal therefore is considered to be contrary to the requirements of criteria 6 of Policy PS 6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and advice provided in paragraphs 3.58 and 3.59 of Planning Policy Wales. 

4.  The proposal as submitted entails the use of a sub-standard entrance and the use of a second entrance without restriction. It is considered that the proposal is unacceptable and contrary to the requirements of policy TRA 4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan which confirms that proposals that would cause unacceptable harm to the safe and efficient operation of the highway will be rejected.

5.  No drainage statement has been submitted as part of the application, and therefore insufficient information has been submitted to be able to confirm that the proposal complies with the requirements of part 7 of TAN 15: Development, flooding and coastal erosion (2025) in terms of providing a sustainable drainage system. ⁠

6.  The site is partially located within a C2 and C3 Flood Zone for surface water and minor watercourses as noted by the 'Flood Map for Planning'. No Assessment of Flood Consequences has been submitted as part of the application and the application means providing a new very vulnerable development on ground floor level and therefore the proposal does not comply with the requirements of paragraphs 6.1, 10.19 or 10.20 of Technical Advice Note 15: Development, flooding and coastal erosion (2025) that ensures that very vulnerable developments are not located within flood zones where they would cause a risk to life.  ⁠