skip to main content

Agenda item

Site 8 additional pods, extension to site, access road, parking spaces and extend amenity building

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Anwen J Davies

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

Minutes:

To site eight additional pods, extend the site, access road, parking spaces and extend amenity building

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form that had been received

 

It was highlighted that the application had been submitted to the Committee as the site was owned by a Council member.

 

a)         The Planning Manager expanded on the application's background, and noted that the application involved creating a camping site for eight pods which would include an access road and parking spaces.  It was noted that it was also intended to construct an extension to the existing self-catering room, to serve the eight new pods. 

 

From the information submitted as part of the application, it was highlighted that the occupancy period of the pods would be between 1 March and 31 October and planning permission would restrict the occupancy of the site to that period within any year.  The pods would remain on site throughout the year, and would be unoccupied during the winter months.  Bearing in mind that the pods will not be moved for storage to an alternative site during the winter months, the application was considered under Policy TWR 3, which concerns touring caravan and chalet sites and permanent alternative camping accommodation. The site lies within a Special Landscape Area and Policy TWR 3 states that proposals for the development of new permanent alternative camping accommodation will be refused within the Special Landscape Area.   

 

In the context of visual amenities, it was reported that the field, that was subject to the application, was approximately three metres higher than the ground level of the existing caravan site and as part of the proposal the field would be excavated to reduce the level by approximately one metre.   Consequently, the lowest metre of the pods would be sunken into the ground compared to the existing field ground level.  Although the sides of the site would be graded when undertaking the excavation work, it was considered that the upper half of the pods would remain visible and the applicant had no intention to undertake landscaping work as part of the application.  It was recognised that the dark green colour of the roofs of the pods would reduce their prominence in the landscape; however, this did not overcome the fact that pods would be placed on higher land than the nearby land. In light of this, it was considered that the proposal would not do anything to maintain, improve or restore the recognised character of the Special Landscape Area and the proposal was contrary to the requirements of Policies PCYFF 4 and AMG 2 of the Local Development Plan.

 

When considering transport and access matters it was noted that access to the site would be along the existing agricultural track and although the proposed site would share the same access to the county highway, there would be a different access to the proposed site and the existing caravan site.  Facilities such as toilets / showers and amenities room would be shared between the existing site and the proposed development. It was considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of road safety and complied with the relevant policies.

 

b)      Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:-

·         Following a suggestion by Gwynedd Council's Biodiversity Unit to place a reed bed in the marsh as a sewerage system, this would not be considered as it would create an undesirable odour and would attract flies. 

·         There was a wish to keep Cors Geirch as it was - it had been kept in this way since the 1940s

·         There was sufficient room to site an additional eight pods on the site

·         That it was not possible to move the pods over the winter months as the steel framework would bend

·         There were arrangements for the septic tank to be emptied twice a year

·         It was not possible to plant trees as their roots would make the land unstable

·         Planning permission had been granted for two pods, therefore why make a difference?

 

c)       It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation

 

ch)     During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members:

·         That the pods suited the landscape better than caravans 

·         That farmers had to consider diversification Therefore tourism was an option

 

·         That it was possible to resolve the situation with the septic tank if correct information was submitted

·         If the pods were mobile and if the applicant was willing to move them, was the application acceptable?

·         That the landscaping element needed to be emphasised 

·         If it was possible to consult and compromise with the applicant on the three reasons for refusal, the application was likely to be approved.

 

d)         In response to a question about how the applicant may be supported to realise the enterprise, the Planning Manager noted that the application was not acceptable due to basic principles.  He highlighted that the applicant had not requested pre-application advice and although the Planning Unit had sought consultation discussions with the applicant, it was evident that there was no intention to amend the application.  The Senior Planning Manager added that the recommendation was strong and the principle of Policy TWR3 had recently been supported in an appeal.

 

dd)       In response to a comment regarding leaving the existing two pods out through the winter, it was asked what was the difference with leaving another eight pods, the Senior Planning Manager stated that there was currently an enforcement investigation into the situation with the two pods. He added that a condition had been imposed on the application to move the pods at the end of the holiday season  He also noted that storage permission existed on the site.

 

RESOLVED to refuse the application.

 

1.         The proposal would create a new alternative camping accommodation site within a Special Landscape Area and therefore contrary to point 1 of Policy TWR 3 of the Local Development Plan.

 

2.         It is not considered that the proposal would integrate with its surroundings and no consideration was given to landscaping matters as part of the proposal.  In light of this, it is not considered that the proposal would add towards maintaining, improving or restoring the recognised character of the Special Landscape Area and that the proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy PCYFF 4 and AMG 2 of the Local Development Plan.

 

3.         No evidence was submitted as part of the application to demonstrate that the existing septic tank has the capacity to serve the eight additional pods.  Designated sites are near the site which include a Special Area of Conservation, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Ramsar site.  As a result of this lack of information, the impact of the proposal on these sites cannot be fully assessed and, therefore, the proposal in its current form is contrary to the requirements of Policy PS 19 of the Local Development Plan and Planning Policy Wales.

 

Supporting documents: