Application to site 10 touring caravans and a static caravan for site manager, shower and toilet block, acoustic fence, earth bank, new access drive and parking spaces for nearby chapel.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor John Brynmor Hughes
Link to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Application to site 10 touring caravans and a
static caravan for site manager, shower and toilet block, acoustic fence, earth
bank, new access drive and parking spaces for a nearby chapel
(a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application and noted that
the applicant alleged that the field had been used to site caravans in the
past. It was reported that information from the applicant was received late on
Friday but as there was no planning right or lawful development certificate in
place, it was no possible to place any weight on the information.
Attention
was drawn to the fact that the site was located approximately 100 metres from
nearby houses, was outside a development boundary as designated in the LDP, was
within a Conservation Area and within the Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB).
It was noted that the AONB Unit had
stated its concern that the new caravan site, and the ancillary developments,
would affect the AONB and Conservation Area. It is felt that landscaping would
not sufficiently reduce the impact of the proposal on the landscape and that it
would not overcome concerns relating to the prominence of the site in the
landscape within the AONB and the Conservation Area.
It was reported that the Transportation
Unit had stated that the proposal would be likely to have a substantial impact
on road safety.
It was noted that it was not believed
that the proposal was acceptable in principle and based on the matters noted in
the report, namely that the proposed development would be likely to have a
substantial detrimental impact on views of the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty and the village's Conservation Area, and on road safety, it would likely
impact the amenities of nearby residents.
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent
noted the following main points:
·
The observations of the Transportation Unit could
not be seen on the track and trace system on the Council's website and so far
no response had been received from the Unit to the enquiry submitted
·
The documents attached to the application had not
appeared on the track and trace system in a timely manner
·
One field was already being used for the Caravan
Club, and another field had touring caravans
·
The existing access was dangerous with a lack of
visibility therefore another method to gain access had been included in the
application
·
The Biodiversity Unit had recently confirmed that
they no longer objected to the application
·
There was enough space on the site for planting in
order to screen the development.
(c) A Member acting as the Local Member (not a Member of this
Planning Committee), supported the application and made the following main
points:
·
There were parking problems on the road therefore
the fact that the application included a car park which could be used
occasionally in association with activities at the Chapel was welcomed
·
There had been a touring caravan site on the site
since the 1950s and the applicant had evidence to prove this
·
The existing access was dangerous
·
The applicant was looking to improve the facilities
on the site.
(ch) In response to the above observations, the
Planning Manager noted:
·
He was unaware that the information on
the application was not on the Council's website in a timely manner, but there
might have been a problem
·
The agent had not taken advantage of
the opportunity to receive advice before submitting an application where these
concerns would have been highlighted
·
Sites operating as a Caravan Club site
had up to five touring units, and the application submitted was for 10
units. Photographs had been received but
a formal application with additional evidence in terms of a lawful development
certificate would have to be submitted.
·
He accepted that the road would be
dangerous if the use as a Caravan Club was for five units, but creating a more
urban development with more vehicular moments was not the solution
·
He confirmed that biodiversity matters
had been resolved.
(d) Proposed and seconded to undertake a site
visit.
The proposer noted the following main points:
·
A site visit should be undertaken due to the
concerns in terms of visual amenities, impact on the amenities of nearby
residents and the access and road safety
·
Agreed that there was a need to consider whether
the static caravan for the manager was essential for the site
·
The site had been used as a Caravan Club site for
many years and beyond with provision currently on the site for 10 touring units
·
Should the applicant make an application for a
lawful development certificate, and should it be successful, the use would be
authorised unconditionally. Therefore, it would be better to approve the
application with conditions.
(dd) In
response to the above observations, the officers noted:
·
A site visit would be wise considering
the matters noted
·
It was not possible to theorise in
terms of lawful development, it was a matter for the applicant to prove that
there was historic use. It was likely that additional information was required
in the report on the use as a Caravan Club site in order to help the members
·
If the applicant had taken advantage of
the opportunity to receive advice before submitting the application, the
officers might have advised him to make an application for a lawful development
certificate - the planning application before the committee was premature in
the context of consideration of any historic use
·
With regards to transportation, a site
visit would be appreciated in terms of the location of the access.
RESOLVED to undertake a site visit.
Supporting documents: