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, noting that
the application had been deferred at the Committee held on 26 February 2018 in
order to carry out a site visit Some of the members had visited the site before
the meeting, and the site was viewed from three different sites, namely the existing
entrance, the proposed entrance and past the existing house. It was noted that
the agent had confirmed that the static caravan for the manager was not part of
the application. It was intended to
create a parking area for 25 vehicles for visitors to the cemetery and users of
the nearby chapel.
It
was noted that the site was within a Conservation Area and the AONB, and the
officers had stated a concern that it would impact the landscape and that
landscaping would not reduce the proposal's impact on the landscape
sufficiently to overcome concerns about the prominence of the site in the
landscape. Attention was also drawn to the amendments and the further
explanation received from the agent which were on the late observations form,
but the only matter relevant to the application before the committee was the
withdrawal of the static caravan for the warden from the application.
In
terms of the principle of the development, it was noted that the site was of a
limited size with caravans placed around the boundaries, and it was noted that
an amenity area had not been indicated and there would not be enough room for
such a provision due to the size of the plot.
The
site was located on a slope with hedges surrounding the site, but the existing
landscaping was insufficient to hide and integrate the proposed units into the
landscape. Whilst it was noted that the plan stated the intention to plant a
new hedge on the edges of part of the new track, it would not be sufficient to
create an acceptable development.
The
applicant stated that the existing entrance was dangerous and inconvenient and,
consequently, part of the proposal involved substantial work to create a new
track along with parking spaces for visitors to the cemetery and nearby chapel.
It was considered that this element would have a substantial detrimental impact
on the landscape and, during the site visit, the parking space and the track
size was seen, and the proposed work would create a very urban element. Whilst
noting that there was parking space nearby for visitors to the cemetery and
chapel users, no real evidence was received to demonstrate the nature and scale
of the problem. The road was considered wide enough for occasional parking use
and it was likely that it would be very occasionally by the chapel and the
cemetery, but the impact of creating such a large car park would be permanent.
Attention
was drawn to the fact that many caravan sites were situated within the area and
were not visible from the application site, and concern would have to be
expressed in this case regarding the cumulative effect of existing sites. It
was considered that the application did not comply with criterion TWR 5
relating to touring caravans.
The
application involved the creation of a new touring caravan site, but the
applicant stated that the site had been used for years and evidence was
submitted in the form of one statutory declaration, a 2017 taxes statement and
photographs in support of this. Nevertheless, no application to legalise this
element through a Certificate of Legal Use was received in accordance with the
usual procedure as had been done at other sites throughout the County in the
past.
It
was considered that the proposal was unacceptable in principle and on the
grounds of local and national policies and guidance, substantial detrimental
impact on nearby residents in addition to road safety concerns. It was
recommended to refuse the application in accordance with reasons 1-4 listed in
the report, as the fifth reason had been met as outlined above.
(b) The
Local Member (not a Member of this Planning Committee) supported the
application, and he made the following main points:
·
That there had been a caravan site on the site
since 1957, and this was supported by a statutory statement letter and that the
planning officers had received this
·
Based on the above, the applicant was not required
to submit a Certificate of Lawful Use
·
That the existing site was in two fields, and there
was a further intention to set up one site in one field
·
That many letters had been sent by families who had
used the site and continued to do so
·
That the applicant had a tax invoice for the site
for 2017/18 noting "Campsite and premises"
·
That the road was narrow and steep and not in good
condition - a new road from Llanengan would be of advantage, especially for the
emergency services. Also, it would include a road to the chapel and cemetery
car park in an area where the road was busy in summer
·
There was no objection to the application locally,
but there was strong support
·
The benefit of the plan was clear
·
Neither the new road nor the caravan site would be
prominent, and a tree planting scheme had commenced
(d) In response, the Senior Solicitor noted that the historic
information had not been assessed on the grounds of the application before the
Committee. To do this, the applicant would have to submit an application to
consider the site's legal use and, if successful, the content of the report
could change. However, it was currently impossible to give weight to a matter
where the evidence had not been tested.
(ch) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.
During
the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
·
Whilst acknowledging what the officers were saying
and, despite the cumulative impact it would have on neighbours and the views of
the AONB, it was asked whether it would be possible to approve or defer the
application and request that the applicant submit the relevant evidence
mentioned above.
·
That the Highways Department had stated that the
access would create problems and that this should be taken into consideration
·
Whilst accepting that there were concerns and no
certificate of lawful use, again the Local Member was of the opinion that the
site had existed for over 61 years.
(d) In
response, the Planning Manager explained that the Planning Committee, at its
meeting on 26 February 2018, had discussed the certificate of lawful use
element and she added that the Planning Department was unaware of any further
evidence submitted, or a request for a certificate of lawful use. It was
further noted that the application for a certificate of lawful use would have
to be given a separate consideration, and that there were complications to
solve deriving from the evidence, such as information about the certified site
which was a site that did not require planning permission. Whilst acknowledging
the agent's statement that it was a different field and on a smaller scale, and
even if this is correct, the application still had a detrimental impact on the
amenities of two houses in addition to the AONB and the Conservation Area due
to the scale and nature of the proposed track.
The Senior Solicitor added that there was a danger
for the Planning Committee to approve the application based on doubt
surrounding the evidence, and the need to receive firm evidence before
considering the element of the certificate of lawful use was emphasised.
The Senior Planning Service Manager explained that
the certificate of lawful use dealt with land use, and did not address the
physical concerns in terms of the reasons for refusing the application. He also
emphasised that there was no justification to approve it in terms of the evidence
put forward, and he suggested that the Planning Committee refuse the
application and he advised them to ask officers to provide appropriate advice
to the applicant to submit an application for a certificate of lawful use.
(dd) A
vote was taken on the proposal to refuse it, adding that the applicant should
be invited for a further discussion with the planning officers on the
certificate of lawful use.
RESOLVED to refuse the
application.
Reasons:
1. The proposal, because of its location, setting and appearance in the
landscape, would stand out as a prominent and intrusive feature in the
countryside and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and on the
visual amenities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal is
therefore contrary to policy AMG 1, PS 19 and TWR 5 of the LDP and
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Holiday Accommodation Gwynedd Council.
2. The proposal, because of its location and setting, would stand out as a prominent
and intrusive feature in the countryside and would have a detrimental impact on
the Llanengan Conservation Area, contrary to policy AT 1 and PS 20 of the LDP.
3. The proposal is contrary to the requirements of Policy PCYFF 2 of the
LDP, considering that it has a detrimental impact on the residential and
general amenities of nearby residents on the grounds of noise and general
increase in general activities.
4. The proposal would increase the use of an existing agricultural access
which has sub-standard visibility splays and at a place where limited
manoeuvres to enter and exit the main road would cause significant road risks,
which is contrary to policy TRA 4 of the LDP.
Supporting documents: