Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and to the amended conditions 4 and 5 as detailed in the late observations. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 8 October 2012.  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 where a letter of support and one of objection were reported along with two points of officer clarification. 

            Mr. I. Betts spoke against the application as a nearby resident of the site.  He referred to the profound detrimental impact of the application on residential amenity and spoke of problems of poor site design, noise, dust, fumes, traffic and pedestrians.  He requested that Members visit his property to see the effect for themselves.  He also did not feel that the site complied with the Unitary Development Plan.  He suggested that a solution to the problems could be to use fields to the side of Hendre Lane, which could include the use of the existing large buildings as facilities for the site and the use of a different access/egress.  Mr. Betts referred to the Section 106 agreement which was in place in respect of the application approved in February 1993 for 25 caravans on the site which had been requested to protect the amenity of neighbours; he felt that the agreement had been ignored.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application until the alternatives had been explored.    

                        Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the applicants wanted to diversify and that he felt that other businesses would benefit from the tourism brought into the area.  He said that the reputation of the site had been built up on the basis of a family business.  He said that 75% of clients stayed on the site on a repeat basis.  He recognised that the other element to the application, the facilities for campers and backpackers, had the potential for anti social behaviour but this had been addressed by CCTV which operated for 24 hours per day and a strict curfew was in operation.  He added that the site boundary had been moved 150 metres away from the residential property. Mr. Williams said that there had been no objections from statutory consultees and the 85 objections had been submitted by one family on grounds which were unsubstantiated.  He commended the officer’s report to the Committee.   

Prior to speaking on the application, Councillor W.O. Thomas said that he had in the context of an earlier application signed an affidavit to confirm that the caravan park had been in place for a number of years but that he had had no involvement with the caravan park.  In order to put Councillor Thomas's remarks in context, the Principal Solicitor drew Members’ attention to application 049598 for a lawful development certificate for an existing use as a touring caravan park and caravan storage and which was reported in the site history section of the report.  The affidavit referred to by Councillor Thomas dealt with the factual information about the length of time that the site had been in operation.  However, it also referred to Councillor Thomas knowing the applicant and that he had visited the site on many occasions.  The Principal Solicitor suggested that Councillor Thomas might wish to clarify the position.

In response, Councillor Thomas said that he had lived in the area all of his life as part of the farming community, was familiar with the farm, and knew the family who ran it due to their being part of that community.  Over time, he had visited the farm on a weekly basis due to his involvement with his own family's haulage business.  The Principal Solicitor asked Councillor Thomas to confirm that, on the basis of what he had said, he did not have a personal interest in relation to the application.  Councillor Thomas confirmed that to be the position. 

            Councillor Thomas proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that most of the dwellings adjacent to the site were in his ward and indicated to Members that he had never received any complaints about the site.  He said that there were a number of accesses into the site and that when the Committee had visited the site, caravans could not be seen until they entered the site as they were well hidden and secluded.  It was kept tidy and safe and there were ample services available.  Councillor Thomas felt that clients of the site would use the local shop, post office and public house which depended on visitors to the area and that diversification of the farm into the tourism industry should be welcomed.  He thanked the officer for his work on the application. 

            Councillor D. Butler said that this application was as a result of an enforcement notice being served and that there had been ample opportunity for the applicant to comply with the notice but had not done so.  He said that diversification was welcomed but felt that approval of this application would send the wrong message.

            Councillor R.C. Bithell raised concern that the change of use had already taken place without permission and that the increase to 120 touring caravans and 40 camping pitches was a significant increase.  In relation to the Clwydian Range Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), he commented that if it could be seen from the site, the site could be seen from the AONB.  It was open countryside and this was an aspect of the application which concerned.  He asked if comments had been received from the AONB Joint Advisory Committee. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer drew Members’ attention to the consultation response from the AONB Joint Advisory Committee which felt that the impact on the AONB would be minimal.  At the site visit which had been held, Members had been close to Mr. Betts’ property so had been able to judge the impact.  The application needed to be determined on its own merits, the site was well screened and existing landscaping would be augmented.  The application reflected the applicant’s wish to regularise the position, but if the application was not approved, further enforcement notice would proceed.  The application site had been moved away from the residential area and the application was in line with tourism policies. 

            In summing up, Councillor Thomas confirmed that the site was well hidden and that the caravans had been moved from the nearest residential properties.  He added that the application should be encouraged to create tourism and diversification for farmers.   

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and to the amended conditions 4 and 5 as detailed in the late observations.