Agenda item

            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 felt that the view in the area was blighted by caravans and there was an impact on the landscape from the Garreg.  He referred to paragraph 7.04 where a further application for an additional four no. unauthorised pitches was reported and reiterated his earlier comment that this application was as a result of enforcement action.  Councillor Dolphin disagreed with the comment in paragraph 7.11 that the site would have a largely green appearance during the winter months and queried the economic benefits reported in paragraph 7.14 and commented that there was not a direct footpath to the services at junction 31.   

            Councillor Alison Halford agreed with the comments of Councillor Dolphin that the applicant had not complied with the permission given and that this application should therefore be refused. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell referred to the highway impacts of the proposal and said that paragraph 7.12 suggested that there were still problems with passing traffic and that this could be addressed by condition.  He queried whether a new condition was required to ensure new passing places were provided.  Councillor Gareth Roberts concurred with Councillor Dolphin and in commenting on the site sustainability, he queried which public house the report was referring to as he was not aware of one that was within walking distance of the site. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer confirmed that the issues with the highway as part of the access to the site had been addressed.  He added that the nearest public house was Tarth y Dwr on the site next door.  The difference between this application and what had previously been agreed with that the 25 pitches were in a different place and the amenity block was not as had been approved but temporary permission was being sought for the two portacabins until the amenity block was erected in the correct location.  However, both applications were for 25 pitches.  The officer confirmed that other applications had been submitted but these had not yet been determined and he also did not yet have a view on the treatment for the hardstandings. 

            The Development Manager referred to the Policies mentioned by Councillor Dolphin stating that the principle of the development could not be revisited as there was an extant planning permission for the development. This application related to changes in matters of detail and members could take the view that the differences from the approved scheme were unacceptable but it was the view of officers that this did not warrant refusal of the proposal.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that refusal of this application would not mean that the site would be cleared but would need to be put back to the scheme that had been approved. 

            Councillor Richard Lloyd queried condition 9 which required removal of the toilet portacabins within six months of the permission and whether this time should be reduced.  He also asked whether the works could be undertaken in January and February when the site was closed.  The officer explained that six months was deemed to be an appropriate amount of time but that a reduced time could be considered. The Planning Strategy Manager detailed the work that would need to be undertaken to provide the permanent amenity block and suggested that this would take longer than the one month shutdown of the site.  Councillor Mike Peers sought clarification on condition 9 which he said did not state that the new amenity block was to be built in that time.  The officer responded that as the erection of the new block formed part of the proposal, it did not need to be specifically mentioned in the condition. 

            Councillor Derek Butler said that it was reported that the hardstandings would be slate but the original application referred to grasscrete; he queried whether this should be conditioned.  The officer said that Members could suggest alternative condition if it was appropriate but reiterated that he had received a separate application on the hardstandings which he had not yet determined. 

            Councillor Halford felt that the views of Mrs. Hughes, the third party speaker, should be considered.  Councillor Matthews said that the applicant had had three years to comply with the approval granted on the previous application.  The officer confirmed that the application had been approved in March 2013 and there had been a period of discussion with enforcement and this application had been submitted some time ago.  The application was before the Committee as officers did not have the delegated authority for the section 106 obligation. 

            In summing up, Councillor Dolphin said that this application had been submitted to try and regularise and formalise the site after years of negotiation and should therefore be refused. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application, against officer recommendation, was CARRIED.             

            RESOLVED:

            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.