Extension to existing boat and caravan storage area.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Eric M. Jones
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Extension to
existing storage site for boats/caravans
(a) The
Senior Development Control Officer elaborated on the background of the
application and noted that the application had been deferred at the Committee
meeting held on 27 November 2017 in order to undertake a site visit. Some members had
visited the site on 8 December 2017.
Attention was drawn to the additional observations that had been
received.
It was
noted that this was a full application to extend the existing boat/caravan
storage area on a section of open field in order to increase the number of
touring caravans from 10 to 50. It was
highlighted that this application would involve increasing the number of
storage units to 90 units (40 boats and 50 touring caravans).
It was considered that the proposal was
unacceptable based on the principle, location, scale, use, road safety,
residential amenities and visual amenities and that it was contrary to the
requirements of relevant local and national planning policies.
It was recommended to refuse the application on the
following grounds:
·
road safety as the
access road serving the site as well as its junction with the A499 in Bethesda
Bach was substandard;
·
that the proposal would
create an incongruous and prominent feature in the landscape;
·
that the proposal would
have a detrimental impact on the residential and general amenities of local
residents;
·
that the scale of the proposal was unacceptable
within its rural setting.
(b) The Local
Member (a member of this Planning Committee), supported the application and he
made the following main points:-
·
That there was demand for caravan storage areas and
that the development would reduce the number being stored in front of houses;
·
That the applicant was a Welsh-speaker and lived
locally;
·
That he was an example of how to run such a storage
site and that the residents had nothing but praise for him;
·
That no accident had occurred on the road or on the
junction of the A499;
·
That the applicant had invested substantially in
the site in terms of lighting, CCTV and trees to screen the site;
·
The site was well-screened;
·
That the residents near the site did not object to
the proposal;
·
That Llandwrog Community Council supported the
application;
·
That the proposal would not be intrusive and the
site was accessible with a lack of such sites;
·
That the applicant was operating legally whilst
other nearby sites were operating illegally;
·
Requested that the Committee approved the
application with conditions if necessary.
(c) It was proposed to approve the application
contrary to the officers' recommendation as the proposal would not be
intrusive, there was no record of accidents on the road and that it was a
matter of opinion whether or not it would be visible from the concealed site.
The proposal was seconded.
The Senior Planning Service Manager
noted that the Transportation Unit objected to the proposal and that evidence
was needed if the Committee wished to act contrary to the highways expert. He
added that although the visual impact was a matter of opinion, there was a need
to consider the size of the site with the application requesting to add 40
touring caravans on the site that was only 2000m2 and in open
countryside.
(ch) During
the ensuing discussion, the following main points were noted by members:
·
That there was a local need;
·
That the site was not visible and that the size of
the site was irrelevant as it was concealed;
·
That no accident had occurred on the road;
·
That there would not be many movements from the
site;
·
That the Transportation Unit objected to the
proposal therefore how could the Committee act contrary to professional
opinion;
·
Concern in terms of road safety and that the site
was visible from high ground;
·
That there had been no accident on the road
therefore there was no evidence in terms of road safety;
·
The site was not visible and the application
addressed a local need.
(d) In
response to the above observations, the officers noted:
·
That the proposal would involve an
increase of over 100% in terms of use of the road thus leading to a substantial
impact, which could not be disregarded;
·
That the fact that no accident had
occurred on the road did not prove that the proposal would be acceptable in
terms of road safety as the units had not been used yet and that there would be
a substantial increase in traffic movements. Consideration had to be given to
the professional opinion.
Resolved: To approve in accordance with the following
conditions:
1. Time
2. In
accordance with amended plans to show a site of 40
3. 40 units only
4. Storage only
5. Landscaping
Supporting documents: