Use of land for a
quad bike safari activity in addition to existing segway, paintball (skirmish
games) and bushcraft activities
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Aled Ll Evans
Minutes:
Use of land for a quad bike
safari activity in addition to existing segway,
paintball (skirmish games) and bushcraft activities
Attention was drawn to the
additional observations that had been received which included a suggestion to
defer the decision
(a) The Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the application’s background
and noted that the site was located in existing woodland on the outskirts of
the village of Llanystumdwy, with access to the site
along an existing unclassified road. It was noted that the site had separate
site access and a car park. It was explained that the area had been created as
an assembly point and reception area for the site's activities farther into the
woodland, with managed access to the permanent paths that led through the
woodland to the activity areas.
It was added that this current proposal was to provide
quad bike safaris along the site's existing paths as an additional activity to
the existing activities held on the site. It was noted that the proposed
development offered
- 6 people using a total of up to six bikes at any one time
- 350cc and 50cc bikes to be used
- The bikes' speed to be restricted to 12-15 miles per hour
- Only ONE activity would be held at any one time, e.g. only the quad
bikes, not the bikes and the segways
It was noted that noise impact deriving from the
proposed use had been included as a concern in a number of letters of objection
received. In a formal response to the public consultation, the Public
Protection Service noted that a comprehensive noise assessment response should
be conducted in relation to the proposal before making a decision on the
application. It was confirmed that Public Protection had received a report from
the applicant, and that conclusions on this report were acceptable. The service
recommended to approve the development subject to noise level conditions.
Having considered all the relevant planning matters,
including local and national policies and guidance, the proposal was considered
to be acceptable.
b) Taking advantage of the
right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:
·
He was responding to
two main avenues of concerns - concerns about noise and overdevelopment
·
He had owned the site
for 16 years
·
He had no intention of
causing concern for his neighbours
·
He had employed a noise
consultant to assess the activity of the quad bikes, and this expert had
visited the neighbours who had raised concern to complete the noise assessment.
·
In the context of
overdevelopment, he said that it was not intended to develop anything else and
that the existing paths would be used for the new activities
·
The company employed 10
staff, with an intention to employ two additional staff if the application was
approved
·
Over 6.5 thousand
people visited the site every year
·
He had transformed a
section of untidy woodland into a successful local business
c) It was proposed and seconded to defer the application in order
to undertake a site visit.
ch) During the ensuing
discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
·
Needed to ensure that the
noise assessment had assessed the noise of six quad bikes, and not one on its
own.
·
The Health Board needed
to be part of the consultation
·
The Public Protection
Officer needed to be invited to the next Committee to share observations
·
The conditions that already
existed since submitting an application in 2012 needed to be considered
·
Were the existing
opening times in-keeping with the original conditions?
RESOLVED to defer
making a decision on the application and to ask the Planning Service to arrange
a site visit.
Supporting documents: