Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) with an amendment to condition 3 to read occupancy restricted to 1^st March to 14^th January in the following calendar year.   

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 21^st March 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and referred Members to the late observations sheet where comments from Welsh Water, Natural Resources Wales, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and an adjoining resident were reported.  Clarification on the use of the existing access and an amendment to condition 3 were also reported. 

            Ms. K. James spoke against the application on behalf of local residents.  She said that whilst policies within the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) allowed for new tourism developments in the open countryside, these required that the development should not have an unacceptable impact.  She felt that it would have an unacceptable impact and stated that the main concerns related to the impact on residential amenity, drainage, highway safety and visual amenity.  She said that 16 letters of objection had been received and none in support of the application.  The proposed site was in close proximity to Godrer Foel and would result in direct overlooking to the rear of the property which would cause significant and undue harm with respect to privacy.  The use of the site would cause additional noise and disturbance due to the change from agricultural and the development wouldbe in breach of the human rights of nearby residents.  Limited information was available about the drainage for foul and waste water in the area and there was no evidence that a satisfactory scheme had been provided.  The site was accessed by a single track lane and Ffordd Glyndwr was a busy through road.  Ms. James felt that a traffic management plan could not overcome the deficiencies in the highway and was not enforceable.  The density of the development would cause considerable visual harm and would be detrimental to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and could not be protected by the provision of screening. 

            Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He commented on the extremely comprehensive report by the Planning Officer which he felt addressed all the issues raised and therefore had a recommendation of approval.  There had been no objections from statutory consultees and the proposal could be justified by being a benefit to the area and was in accord with local and national policy. 

            Councillor V. Hinstridge, from Gwernymynydd Community Council, said that the Community Council had objected to the proposal for reasons which included issues of the safety of pedestrians and local traffic movements.  The area was popular with horse-riders and approval of the application would be a danger to them because of vehicle movements to and from the site on narrow country lanes.  The proposed site was in open countryside and did not have a bus route so would increase traffic in the area and she felt that there was no need for an additional caravan site.  The site was in the AONB and the proposal was considered to be detrimental to the local area.  There was no evidence that the Environment Health officers and Licensing Section had been consulted on the proposal.  There were also no details provided with respect to the location of the septic tank and no consultation with local neighbours on their opinion of the application. 

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that on the site visit it had been apparent that movements of caravans in the area was not an issue as large vehicles such as horse-boxes and tractors were able to freely move around the area.  He indicated that the Clwydian Range & Dee Valley AONB Joint Committee had not objected in principle to the proposal which it felt would add to the tourism infrastructure of the AONB.  Councillor Chris Bithell said that statutory consultees had not objected to the proposal and he could not see any reason for refusal that could be defended on appeal.  He sought clarification as to whether the site would operate a booking system and in referring to paragraph 7.09, said that it appeared that prior arrangements would need to be made for arrivals and that time of departure would need to be before 12 noon.  A traffic management plan had been included with the application and instructed users of the site to approach and leave the site from Nercwys Road rather than from Gwernymynydd.

            The Local Member, Councillor Nancy Matthews, said that her comments had been reported and added that she had asked for Committee determination because of the new development in the open countryside which was not an expansion of an existing site.  She referred to Policy T1 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) which required sites to be sensitive to the environment and to the needs of local people.  She felt that there should have been the same rigorous application process as the other new business at Cambrian Quarry particularly in relation to the ecological survey.  She spoke of the land on the site which provided foraging for various birds and animals and referred to a grassland survey that had been carried out in February when the common practice was for such surveys to be carried out in mid-summer and therefore it was likely that the report did not provide a true picture of the species in the area.  It was reported that there was no evidence of badgers on site but a buffer zone of 30 metres around the site should have been searched for evidence which Councillor Matthews felt would have been found.  Councillor Matthews said that no account had been taken of Great Crested Newts and she commented on the A494 Ruthin Road and Eryrys Road and if the application was allowed it would impact on other local businesses.  She spoke of inadequate screening of the site because of the length of time it would take for any newly planted trees to provide the necessary screening.  The applicant was seeking to provide pitches for touring caravans with toilet block but there was no mention of electric hook-up or facilities, drinking water taps on the site or for emptying of waste water.  Having earlier declared that she may be perceived to have pre-determined her stance on the application, Councillor Matthews went to sit at the back of the Chamber and did not take part in the remainder of the debate or the vote on the application.         

            Councillor Mike Peers said that the site was in an elevated position in the open countryside.  This was a much used road and approval of the application would cause serious road safety issues and he felt that the roads were unsuitable for caravans and would have an impact on pedestrians and horses.  He agreed that the proposal would bring tourism to the area but disagreed that this was the correct location for such a proposal.  There was a need to consider the traffic implications and the lack of passing opportunities would make the area dangerous.  Paragraph 7.11 reported that the only route considered suitable for access was the stretch of Glyndwr Road running north/south from the Nercwys to Eryrys Road.  However Councillor Peers referred to the comments of the Head of Highways that a condition be included for the erection of a traffic sign indicating that Glyndwr Road was unsuitable for caravans.  He felt that a significant consideration was the narrowness of the road which did not have a footpath and the road network was inadequate for such a proposal.  He referred to paragraph 7.32 where it was proposed that a Package Sewage Treatment Plant be included on the site.  Councillor Peers felt that the impact on the local amenity and the issues with the highways made the site unsuitable for the proposed use. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts felt that the location was very close to the road to Nercwys which had wide verges which would allow space for two vehicles to pass.  He spoke of the level site, provision of suitable screening around the site and an appropriate access and commented that it was in accord with planning policy.  Councillor Richard Lloyd felt that the provision of passing places would be suggested to the applicant and added that screening and the impact on the landscape were important considerations.  He sought clarification on the entrance to the site and suggested that the site season should start from 1^st March, not 31^st March as reported in the late observations.  Councillor Owen Thomas concurred that the area was not suitable for the proposed use as a caravan site and added that it was not possible to include passing places on the grass verges.  He felt that there were a number of routes that caravans could take to reach the site and that not all users would follow the directions provided to them. 

            The Senior Engineer – Highways Development Control said the condition for signage had been requested to try and restrict the access and egress to the site from the Nercwys side.  It was felt that Glyndwr Road was suitable for cars but not for caravans and she added that a traffic management plan had been included with the application.     

                        In response to the comments made, the officer advised that the issue of lighting was covered in condition 14 and that a prior booking arrangement would be put in place (as referred to in paragraph 7.09) and the proposal would need to be implemented in accordance with the submitted highway management plan.  A scheme of approved landscaping was also required.  The officer confirmed that the site would use the existing entrance and that the site operating season could be amended to read 1^st March to 14^th January the following calendar year.  This was proposed by Councillor Lloyd and was duly seconded.   

                        The Planning Strategy Manager said that Councillor Matthews had indicated that the proposal was not for the expansion of an existing site but reminded Members that it did not need to be (as referred to in Policy T6) and therefore the proposal was not contrary to the Tourism policy. 

                        In summing up, Councillor Butler agreed to include the amended site operating dates in his proposal to accept the recommendation and reiterated his earlier comments that there had been no objections from statutory consultees. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) with an amendment to condition 3 to read occupancy restricted to 1^st March to 14^th January in the following calendar year.

After the vote had been taken, Councillor Matthews returned to her seat in the meeting.