Retrospective
application to extend touring caravan site and retain toilet block and decking,
together with implementation of landscaping scheme
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Angela Russell
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Retrospective
application to extend a touring caravan site and retain the toilet block, a
timber platform and undertake a landscaping plan.
a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, explaining
that the application had been deferred at the meeting of the Planning Committee
held on 16 April 2018 in order to re-consult and reassess the application in
light of receiving amended plans. It was outlined that this was a retrospective
application to extend an existing touring caravan site, and retain the toilet
block, electrical hook ups, and undertake a landscaping and tree planting
scheme along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. It was reiterated
that the application entailed siting 10 additional touring caravans on the
property in addition to the 10 touring caravans approved in a previous
retrospective application in 2016. It was noted that the proposal also included
additional storage for 20 touring caravans and since there was extant
permission for storing 10 touring caravans, there would be storage for a total
of 30 touring caravans.
It was reported that the site lay in a prominent site
within a Special Landscape Area and was visible from the parallel county road
and the public footpath that ran along the site's northern boundary. It was
noted that the site was clearly visible from the county road between Llanbedrog and Mynytho.
Reference was made to Policy TWR 5 of the Local
Development Plan which approved proposals for extensions to existing touring
sites or additional pitches provided they complied with all the criteria noted.
It was emphasised that the aim of the policy was to facilitate the
establishment of high quality touring and camping sites in suitable locations.
Although the proposal would not be contrary to all the
requirements of Policy TWR 5, it was considered that the proposal did not meet
the policy's main aims which required that sites be unobtrusive in the
landscape; therefore, it was considered that the principle of the development
was contrary to policy TWR 5.
It was noted that the application was a request to
increase the storing provision of touring caravans to 30, but the Planning
Service was of the opinion that the location of the extended site was intrusive
in the local landscape, and was clearly visible from Lôn
Pin, and the current landform and landscaping were not sufficient to assimilate
the units within the site. Although the plans showed a proposal to reinforce
the existing landscaping, there was no assurance that the planting would be
carried out to the extent that would be necessary to screen the development.
Reference was made to the concerns and the objections
that had been received in the context of general and residential amenities. It
was emphasised that the Transportation Unit objected to the application because
of the substantial increase in the number of touring units that would triple
the site's capacity, and was likely to lead to a substantial increase in
traffic flow along this rural road. It was presumed that the road would not be
suitable for the number of vehicles towing caravans or for more movements as
there were not many passing opportunities on the road. It was added that the
road provided access to other touring caravan sites and local farming fields
and, as a result, dealt with a high percentage of other large vehicles and
plant.
It was considered that the application would harm the
enjoyment of nearby residents at their properties, not only because of the increase
in traffic, but also because of the additional activity and noise. It was not
considered that the landscaping and tree planting scheme would overcome this
problem.
b) The applicant’s
agent noted the following main points:
·
These were seasonal
caravans and, for a period, they would be stored on site before being
transported to storage. Consequently, there would be no disruption to
transportation
·
The previous storage
was too small
·
Three site visits had been
held with officers, and amendments had been agreed. If the intention was to
refuse, this should have been made clear to the applicant before he paid for
the agent's service. It was noted that this was unacceptable.
·
The applicant was
willing to modify the size of the building
·
The site was only
visible from afar. Proposed planting with an intention to plant more if
required - this could be managed by imposing a landscaping condition
c) It was
proposed and seconded to refuse the application.
In response to an observation about meetings that had been
held when discussing the application, it was noted that it was the applicant's
responsibility to consider costs when submitting an application. There was no
suggestion of misleading the applicant and concerns about the proposal had been
consistent during discussions, and that the recommendation to refuse had been
made public before the application was deferred in April this year.
It was reiterated that the
site was operating contrary to the licence, without planning permission, and
the application was contrary to planning policies and regulations. It was
emphasised that the reasons for refusing were robust.
In response to a question
regarding retaining the bathrooms (following expenditure on improvements), the
Senior Planning Manager emphasised the need for further discussions with the
enforcement officers to discuss this element of the proposal.
RESOLVED to refuse the application.
To Refuse
1. The development, owing to its location, setting and appearance in the
landscape, would stand out as a prominent and obtrusive feature in open
countryside and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and on the
visual amenities of the Special Landscape Area. Furthermore, the proposal would
be located in a prominent site and would not be well screened by the existing
landscape features. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policy PS 19 and
policies AMG 1, PCYFF 2 and TWR 5 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local
Development Plan (July 2017) and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Llety Gwyliau, Cyngor Gwynedd
2. Generating an unacceptable increase in the level of traffic along a
narrow and winding road that has few passing places, creating a situation that
would be likely to harm road safety, contrary to Policy TRA 4
3. It disrupts nearby residents' enjoyment of their property because of the
unacceptable increase in the level of traffic, disturbance and noise, contrary
to Policy PCYFF 2.
Supporting documents: