Agenda item

7.1 – 19C1231 - Cae Rhos Estate, Porthdafarch Road, Holyhead.

https://ioacc.force.com/s/papplication/a1G5800000HzFxcEAF/19c1231?language=en_GB

7.2 – FPL/2019/223 - Pen-Wal Bach,  Pen Lon, Newborough.

https://ioacc.force.com/s/papplication/a1G4H00000Jt1YBUAZ/fpl2019223?language=en_GB

7.1 19C1231 – Outline application for the erection of 32 market dwellings and 4 affordable dwellings, construction of new vehicular and pedestrian access, provision of play area and open spaces together with full details of access and layout on land adjacent to Cae Rhos Estate, Porthdafarch Road, Holyhead

The Development Management Manager reported that the applicant’s agent has this morning offered a piece of land at Mountain View, Holyhead for parking for local residents and also to respond to highways concerns in the area. There has been an agreement between the applicant’s and the Highways Authority that the application be deferred so as to allow further discussions as regards to the application.

Councillor Robin Williams proposed that the application be deferred and Councillor Eric W Jones seconded the proposal.

It was RESOLVED to defer the application for the reasons given at the meeting.

7.2 FPL/2019/223 – Full application for change of use of agricultural land into a seasonal tent camping site on land adjacent to Pen-Wal Bach, Pen Lon, Newborough

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of Local Members.

It was reported that a letter was received by Mr Richard Wyn Owen on behalf of the Pen Lon community in opposition of the application. The letter was read out to the meeting as follows:-

‘The Pen Lon community strongly object to the above planning application to change the use of the current agricultural field into a camp site. The Planning Department has received over 30 letters objecting to the proposal and a petition 3

with 46 names has also been received objecting to the planning application. Pen Lon is a quiet rural hamlet and is known for its tranquillity, the application site is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Last year the owners of the land used the land for tents under the 28-day temporary planning rule. They failed to comply with the 28-day temporary rule and used the land in excess of 60 days. The noise generated from the site was tremendous and loud music, shouting and people drinking could be heard coming from the site between 2-3am in the morning. The amount of additional traffic generated on the single track, unclassified highway by the tent site last year was incredible. The planning application submitted states that cars will enter via the main road and exit on the unclassified road directly opposite an existing property known as ‘Rushmead’. The location of this site means that people will be dependent on their private cars to travel around due to the lack of public transport in the area. This will have a negative impact upon the amenities of this property as there will be a constant flow of traffic leaving the site together with car headlights at night-time.

Hypothetically, as an example, should there be 30Campers on site on any time, this will incur up to 90no vehicle trips per day onto the single track unclassified highway due to numerous trips per day to the shops / beach / local attractions and evening trips for dinner / restaurants in the area. This is also assuming the vehicles will not start using the egress as an access route / entrance instead of that suggested on the A4080 main road. The proposal involves widening the existing vehicular access that exits the site and removing the existing hedges to a total of 68 metres to form a visibility splay. This will remove the existing hedge that provides a natural screening to the site. The campsite would then be highly visible and within approx. 30m of principal elevations of existing residential properties and the noise pollution would be even worse than it was previously under the temporary rule and I must stress that it was unbearable with the hedge in place. Planning Policy PCYFF2 states that any application that would have an adverse impact upon the amenities of adjacent residential properties should be refused.

The application site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and it is known for its beauty and tranquillity. The proposed development would have a negative impact on the AONB and the noise generated from the site would affect the area’s natural tranquillity. Removing 68m of existing hedging would open up the site and be detrimental to the AONB.

This site is not high-quality as there is no mention on how many tents will be placed on site and no layout has been provided with the planning application. Last year the site looked like something from Glastonbury with tents of all shape, size and colour dotted here, there, and everywhere. There has been no mention of any landscaping proposals and no form of boundary treatment to the application site. If this application was approved what would stop them from using the rest of the field for camping. I would like to point out that there are at least 6 caravan/tent site facilities within a mile radius of this application site. One caravan site is next door to this site and is known as the ‘Marram Grass’, why is there a need for a 7th tent site?

The application site was for sale some years ago; however, it did not sell as it did not achieve the value they desired. The applicant is deliberately seeking planning approval for financial gain in selling the property and land. The applicant’s parent is known by two local occupants in Pen Lon to have said ‘its worthless as agricultural land, once I get planning it will be worth a fortune’.

We urge the planning committee to follow the recommendation of the officers and refuse the planning application. A tent site on this site would destroy the Pen-Lon community, it would have a negative impact on our well-being. The planning application is against several policies of the Joint Local Development Plan and will impact the AONB. We fear that by allowing / approving such a potential development will encourage a much larger future expansion / proposal for a “Haven style park” destroying the area entirely. This could also open doors to future applications locally and set a precedence going forward. We urge the committee to spend the time in reading all the local opposition letters and emails as its very important to the future of the area.’

A letter by the applicants, Mr Terry Usher and Mrs Jane Usher in support of their application. The letter was read out to the Committee as follows:-

‘We moved to join our family in Newborough, after my mum was left here alone, following the death of my father. The house and land were simply too much for her to manage alone. The property has been in the family for very nearly 100 years, and as such, we would have been very sad to have to sell up. We did however need to ensure we could support ourselves financially, and the idea of running a small campsite to assist us to achieve this, was one that really excited us. We both have part-time employment as well. Myself as a Childcare Assistant at the Bangor University Nursery and my husband as a Grocery Home Delivery Driver.

Following some research, we have very much tried to ensure that we can adhere to the guidance set out in Policies TWR 3 and TWR 5; no excessive areas of hardstanding, utilisation of existing buildings, only for holiday use, etc. As a tent only development, we feel we fully meet all these requirements. We have had an ecological survey completed that concluded that the type of development we plan to undertake would have minimal negative impact on the environment.

We have, were at all possible, tried to reduce the impact the change of use could potentially have on surrounding properties, by moving the location of the camping field from where it was originally proposed, so it is no longer directly adjacent to Pen Lon, creating a kind of ‘buffer’ between the camping field and Pen Lon. We do wish to be good neighbours, and would act swiftly to address any issues with our neighbours, should any arise.

As the proposed development is for tents only, there are no plans to install any electrical hook-up points, which would clearly be more ecologically and environmentally friendly.

The feedback we had from last season, was that people really liked the fact that the site was for tents only. We are therefore really happy to have this as our USP, when so many other sites seem to be prioritising touring caravans and motorhomes. We are happy to continue with the arrangement with a local farmer to utilise the land for grazing during the closed season. The proposed development would have positive impact on local and wider economy. The proposed development would promote the area and support other tourist attractions.

We have gained support for the proposed development from a local Councillor and from some members of the Rhosyr Community Council. We have gained letters of support from a range of local businesses and a petition of support from scores of local people. These have all been forwarded to the local Councillor, but details of these can be passed to you if required.

We have concluded that in a small community such as ours, there is an inevitability that people’s intentions can be misconstrued, and we have certainly had some very imaginative interpretations of what we intend to do filter back to us. We can assure you that we only intend to undertake that which is set out in our planning application; a basic, tent only, seasonal campsite, managed and owned by us. Overall, we feel that the proposed development would be an asset to Newborough and the surrounding area, presenting it in a very positive light and producing predominantly good outcomes for a wide range of people and the area.’

Councillor Peter Rogers, a Local Member said that he fully supported the application as the applicant’s only wish is to have a tent only site and it would be an asset to the area and local businesses support the application. He referred to the comments within the letter of objection to the development as regards that people who use the camp site will have to use their cars to travel around the area. Councillor Rogers said that people enjoy walking and are not dependent on their cars. He further said that following the public consultation period coming to an end in February 2020 the applicant’s changed the details of the plans following objections to the application. Following amended plans only 3 objections had been received and none of the statutory consultees objected to the development. Councillor Rogers expressed that the applicant’s should be supported as the family members, over the years, have been hard working within the community of Newborough.

The Development Management Manager reported that the application relates to change of use of land to a campsite for the use of tents only between Easter and October in any calendar year. The amended plans submitted offered a one way system for traffic entering the site from an existing vehicular access for the A4080 through land within the applicant’s control to the agricultural field and thereafter exiting the site through the road to the west. It was noted that the Highways Authority has submitted no objection to the proposal for a one way system subject to conditions. However, she reported that the proposal is considered to be unacceptable on the basis that it is not considered to be of high quality in terms expected under material planning policies, as it would have an unacceptable impact in terms of the AONB, residential amenity and on sustainability grounds as noted within the report. The recommendation was of refusal of the application.

Councillor Bryan Owen said that he is a Local Member and has been approach by objectors to the application. Councillor Owen said that he would abstain from voting.

Councillor Robin Williams proposed that the application be refused as the application did not meet the required planning criteria. Councillor John Griffiths seconded the proposal as it would have an impact on the AONB and the amenities of neighbouring residents.

It was RESOLVED to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation for the reasons outlined in the written report.