Issue - meetings

            That planning permission be refused as the application did not comply with relevant criteria of policies, GEN1, D1, D2, D3 and L1 of the UDP.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that in 2013 the Committee had approved an application for 25 no. pitches which had conditions attached.  The site had not been developed in accordance with the consent granted and the amenity building approved had not been installed resulting in the two portacabins remaining in place.  This application was recommended for approval with the applicant being asked to enter into a Section 106 agreement to rescind the right to site 25 touring caravans in accordance with planning permission reference 048006.  In consideration of the application, the officer had not revisited the principle of the site as he had previously considered compliance against Policy T6 and there had not been any reason to revisit it.  He had focused on the changes between the permission granted and this application and the impact of the temporary siting of the portacabins. 

                        Mrs. J. Hughes spoke against the application and expressed significant concern as she felt that it did not comply with Policy T6.  Application 049102 reported an increase of 30% but she felt that this was 66% and added that the portacabins also did not comply with Policy GEN1 and should be immediately removed.  The highest point of the site was 210 metres and the lowest was 194 metres at the access to the site and Mrs. Hughes also referred to a footpath which crossed the site.  She also felt that the proposal did not comply with Policy L1 and said that the applicant was mindful that the grass would be churned up in the winter and commented that the pitches had originally been grass only.  She spoke of two further applications that had been submitted and of the appeal that had been refused by Welsh Government on a nearby site because of the impact on the area; that site had a highest point of 194 metres.  

            The Local Member, Councillor Chris Dolphin, proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposals did not comply with Policies T6, GEN1, GEN3, D1, D2, D3 and L1 and added that the principle of development had also not been complied with.  He said that the site was in a rural location in the open countryside and would have a significant impact on the area and that the application should be refused to allow the site to be cleared.  He had been opposed to the original application as he felt that it had not complied with policy and indicated that the site had been the subject of continual enforcement action and additional applications to regularise the site.  He commented on the condition about no external lighting pointing out that it was currently installed on the site and had resulted in a number of complaints to Councillor Dolphin.  He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100