Extension to existing boat and caravan storage area.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Eric M. Jones
Minutes:
Extension to existing storage site for
boats/caravans
(a)
The
Senior Development Control Manager elaborated on the application's background,
noting that it was a full application to extend the existing storage site for
boats/caravans on a section of an open field to increase the numbers of mobile
caravans from 10 to 50.
The recommendation was to refuse the application on
the grounds of road safety, as the proposal was a significant increase in the
number of proposed units to be stored on the site and consequently the number
of vehicles towing a caravan that were likely to use the narrow road between
the site and the A499 at Bethesda Bach.
The site was located on a small open hill in the
countryside, in an area defined by the Capacity and Sensitivity Assessment as
'undulating agricultural landscape comprising small scale fields together with
a pattern of irregular and uneven fields with extensive views of the landscape
itself'. Approving this current
application would detrimentally affect the pattern and character of this
landscape.
Increasing the number of touring caravans from 10
to 50 (in addition to the 40 boats that already had consent at Crud y Nant)
would be a significant increase and impact on road safety. In response to the statutory consultation,
the Transportation Unit had expressed their objection to this current
application on the grounds that the proposal would entail a significant
increase in the number of units proposed to be stored on the site. Bearing in mind that the road to the site was
sub-standard due to its narrow and winding nature and the lack of passing
places/lay-bys, it would create an inconvenience to users who use and serve the
site and would undermine the principles of good safety.
It was considered that there were more suitable
sites available locally for storage (B8 Class use) with an example of a recent
application approved to store touring caravans and vehicles within Penygroes
Industrial Estate.
It was considered that the proposal was
unacceptable in terms of the requirements of Policy TRA4 of the LDP and was not
acceptable based on principle, location, scale, materials, road safety, visual
amenities and residential amenities and was contrary to the requirements of
relevant local and national planning policies.
(b)
Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following main points:
·
The
site was secure (with CCTV), convenient and well managed.
·
There
were only a few vehicle movements.
·
There
had been no accidents since the site was established 12 years ago.
·
The
damage to the wall was only an allegation.
·
The
business did not affect the neighbours in any way.
·
The
site would be evident from higher ground but would be well screened with trees.
·
That
Llandwrog Community Council had no objection to the application.
·
Initial
discussions had taken place to restrict speed from 40mph to 30mph on the
highway.
(c)
The
Local Member expressed support to the application with the following main
points:
·
That
the site offered good security.
·
There
were a good arrangements for moving and management of the site.
·
There
was no truth in the allegations of damage to walls.
·
The
applicant had made a substantial investment in the site and operated legally.
·
The
site was screened well.
·
The
demand and need for boat sites had reduced, but the call for caravan storage
sites had increased - the applicant was responding to the need.
·
The
applicant was a Welsh speaker and lived locally.
·
The
neighbours had not objected and were willing to confirm that there would be no
impact on their residential amenities.
·
If
there was a difference of opinion, it was suggested they could visit the site,
or if there was a willingness to re-consider the numbers.
(ch) It was proposed and seconded to approve the
application, contrary to the recommendation
(d)
During
the ensuing discussion, the following points were highlighted by individual
Members:
·
That
caravan sites 'that are intrusive in open countryside' were approved and
therefore there was no reason to refuse the principle of this application.
·
That
the site would be mitigated well - was not visible from the road
·
There
was no evidence of accidents or risks submitted
·
That
the applicant gave and sustained a service according to need
(dd) It was proposed and seconded that the
Planning Committee should visit the site.
(e)
In response to the observations, the Senior Planning Service
Manager noted that the development was fairly substantial in the countryside
and was much bigger than what had been conveyed.
RESOLVED: To ask the Planning Service Manager to arrange for the Planning
Committee to visit the site.
Supporting documents: