Application No W/33032

Application Type Full Planning

Proposal & A SMALL ENVIRONMENTALY FRIENDLY CAMPING POD SITE, Location INCLUDING FOUR CAMPING PODS AND ONE TENT PITCH, ONE POD WITH SEPARATE MALE AND FEMALE TOILET AND SHOWER, ONE UNISEX TOILET AND KITCHEN AND BARBECUE AREA AT WEST WALES CAMPING PODS, PLASBACH, HENLLAN AMGOED, WHITLAND, SA34 0SE

Applicant(s) MRS ELIZABETH HERMITAGE, PLASBACH, HENLLAN AMGOED, WHITLAND, SA34 0SE

Case Officer Stuart Willis

Ward Whitland

Date of validation 02/12/2015

CONSULTATIONS

Head of Transport – Has not responded to date

Henllanfallteg Community Council – Has responded stating it has no objections as this application is already a successful business which is helping to support the community.

Local Member - County Councillor S Allen is a substitute member of the Planning Committee has requested that this application be presented to the Planning Committee as “there is a lot of local support for the business and it has been an anomaly when the camping pods were first introduced since they did not fit into the usual categories of camping or caravans”.

Neighbours/Public - The application has been publicised by the posting of a Site Notice with no responses having been received as a result

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

W/11644 Proposed two storey extension Full planning permission granted 4 January 2006

D4/23896 Change of Use to a dog breeding establishment Full planning permission granted 15 October 1993

APPRAISAL

The application is as a result of action taken by the Planning Enforcement Team.

THE SITE

The application site consists of a field at land associated with a property known as Plas Bach. The site is located off a track leading south east from the county road. The application field slopes to the south east and is located approximately 75m from the farm house and complex of buildings. The site is located outside of development limits. The nearest settlements with limits to the application site are Llanboidy (3.6km), Cwmfelinboeth (2.9km) and Llanfallteg (2.9km).

The site is located between Llanfallteg and Llanboidy. The use is already in place and the application is following action taken by the Planning Enforcement Team.

THE PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the proposed use of the agricultural field as a small environmentally friendly camping pod site, including four camping pods and one tent pitch, one pod with separate male and female toilet and shower, one unisex toilet and kitchen and barbecue area

The pods and other structures are located along the north eastern and north western boundary of the site. The access track runs along the north western boundary of the site. There are 5 pods, 4 of which are used for accommodation with the other being the toilet and shower facilities. They each measure 2.83m by 4.75m. There are electricity points for the pods and a gravelled parking area adjacent to them. There are other wooden structures in the field used for storage and as a cover for the barbeque area. In terms of the pods themselves they state that they are temporary structures and were delivered in one piece and placed on the ground.

The details with the application indicate that the site is a 50 acre farm. The supporting information also makes reference to what the applicant sees as negligible increase in traffic. It is stated that the holding is a working farm with sheep, beef cattle and goats. They also refer to an equine business at the site and that the camping pods supplement the income from the farm as a way of farm diversification. It is stated that the camping pods have made the “struggling farm into a thriving family business which will ensure the long term survival of the agricultural use” of the farm. The submission indicates that the pods have been at the site and the business operated since 2012 and that they have become increasingly popular. They also refer to the visitors spending money in local businesses such as nearby public houses. Local facilities in Whitland and train and bus connections at other settlements are referred to. Details of the pods themselves and the facilities they include such as fridges are provided.

Excerpts from travel review websites have also been provided.

The submission refers to pre-application advice in 2011 where the applicants feel it was advised that planning permission was not required for the pods.

The application refers to the pods being made from sustainable timber and insulated with sheep’s wool. The composting outlets are also put forward to support sustainability. They comment that the site is dependant on the attributes of the site and that to counter the distance form settlements facilities are provided such as a fridge in the pods to reduce the need for travelling.

The supporting information refers to visitors coming to explore Carmarthenshire and West Wales but that some also stay on site reducing the need to use a car. Walking and cycling by visitors is also said to reduce the use of vehicles. A pick up service is also offered to guests with pick up from Whitland train station which they say has been “used on a few occasions”.

The access track is described as existing however this appears to have been added in recent years. There is no record of planning permission or an agricultural notification having been submitted for it.

PLANNING POLICIES

Policy GP1 Sustainability and High Quality Design. This states that development proposals will be permitted where they accord with a number of criteria including the following, it conforms with and enhances the character and appearance of the site, building or area in terms of siting, appearance, scale, height, massing, elevation treatment, and detailing, utilises materials appropriate to the area within which it is located; it retains, and where appropriate incorporates important local features (including buildings, amenity areas, spaces, trees, woodlands and hedgerows) and ensures the use of good quality hard and soft landscaping and embraces opportunities to enhance biodiversity and ecological connectivity; an appropriate access exists or can be provided which does not give rise to any parking or highway safety concerns on the site or within the locality

Policy EQ4 Biodiversity The policy states that proposals for development which have an adverse impact on priority species, habitats and features of recognised principal importance to the conservation of biodiversity and nature conservation, (namely those protected by Section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 and UK and Local BAP habitats and species and other than sites and species protected under European or UK legislation) will not be permitted, except where it can be demonstrated that the impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated, acceptably minimised or appropriately managed to include net enhancements; there are exceptional circumstances where the reasons for the development or land use change clearly outweighs the need to safeguard the biodiversity and nature conservation interests of the site and where alternative habitat provision can be made in order to maintain and enhance local biodiversity.

Policy TR3 Highways in Developments - Design Considerations The policy requires the design and layout of all development proposals to, where appropriate, to include an integrated network of convenient and safe pedestrian and cycle routes (within and from the site) which promotes the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport; suitable provision for access by public transport; appropriate parking and where applicable, servicing space in accordance with required standards; an infrastructure and spaces allowing safe and easy access for those with mobility difficulties; required access standards reflective of the relevant Class of road and speed restrictions including visibility splays and design features and calming measures necessary to ensure highway

safety and the ease of movement is maintained, and where required enhanced; and provide for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems to allow for the disposal of surface water run off from the highway.

Proposals which do not generate unacceptable levels of traffic on the surrounding road network and would not be detrimental to highway safety or cause significant harm to the amenity of residents will be permitted.

Proposals which will not result in offsite congestion in terms of parking or service provision or where the capacity of the network is sufficient to serve the development will be permitted. Developers may be required to facilitate appropriate works as part of the granting of any permission.

Policy SP1 Sustainable Places and Spaces This policy states that proposals for development will be supported where they reflect sustainable development and design principles and refers to a number examples including distributing development to sustainable locations in accordance with the settlement framework, supporting the roles and functions of the identified settlements; respecting, reflecting and, wherever possible, enhancing local character and distinctiveness; creating safe, attractive and accessible environments which contribute to people’s health and wellbeing and adhere to urban design best practice; promoting active transport infrastructure and safe and convenient sustainable access particularly through walking and cycling; utilising sustainable construction methods where feasible; improving social and economic wellbeing; and protect and enhance the area’s biodiversity value and where appropriate, seek to integrate nature conservation into new development

Policy TSM1 Static Caravan and Chalet Sites This policy states proposal for new static caravan and chalet sites will only be permitted within the Development Limits of a defined settlement (Policy SP3). Proposals for the enhancement and extension of existing static and chalet sites will only be permitted where:

a. The development will increase the vitality, sustainability and environmental quality of the site; b. It will not result in an unacceptable increase in the density of units and/or the overall scale of the site; c. It enhances the surrounding landscape and townscape; d. It provides (where appropriate) for the significant improvement of the overall quality, appearance and setting of the site.

Policy TSM2 Touring Caravan and Tent Sites This states that proposals for new touring caravan and/or tent sites, and for extensions/improvements to an existing site, will be permitted where it is directly related to an identified Growth Area, Service Centre, Local Service Centre or a Sustainable Community which exhibit appropriate services and facilities, it will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon (and where appropriate enhances) the surrounding landscape and townscape, it will provide (where appropriate) for the significant improvement of the overall quality, appearance and setting of the site and the site will not result in an over concentration of sites within the area.

It goes on to state that proposals which include a need for ancillary structures should demonstrate that a sequential approach has been considered commencing with the re-use of existing buildings, followed by the need to construct new buildings. New buildings will

only permitted where they are appropriate in terms of their siting, need and scale. Proposals for the conversion of an existing touring caravan and/or tent site to a static caravan and/or chalet site will not be permitted unless it accords with Policy TSM1

Policy TSM3 Small Scale Tourism Development in the Open Countryside This states that proposals for small scale attractions/facilities in the open countryside; including appropriate extensions to existing facilities, will be approved where there is no suitable site available within the Development Limits of any nearby defined settlement, the site is directly related to a defined settlement, the countryside location is essential and the proposal is highly dependant on the attributes of the site, the proposal includes a supporting statement demonstrating a clear and justifiable need for the development to be located at that given location, where appropriate, the development will increase the vitality, sustainability and environmental quality of the site and there will be no adverse effects on the surrounding landscape/townscape or the setting and integrity of the historic environment.

Proposals which include a need for ancillary structures should demonstrate that a sequential approach has been considered commencing with the re-use of existing buildings, followed by the need to construct new buildings. New buildings will only permitted where they are appropriate in terms of their siting, need and scale.

Policy EMP4 Farm Diversification This policy states that proposals for farm diversification projects will be permitted where it is subordinate to, compatible with and supports the continued operation of the agricultural activity of the existing working farm, it is of a scale and nature appropriate to the existing farm operation, the scale and nature of the activity is compatible with its accessibility to public transport and the need for local highway improvements, the scale and scope of any retail use (where planning permission is required) would not have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of retail facilities in nearby settlements, or would undermine the retail hierarchy (see policy RT1) and it would not have an adverse impact on the character, setting and appearance of the area and the surrounding landscape and where appropriate, townscape.

It goes on to state that proposals should give priority to the conversion of suitable existing buildings on the working farm. Where justified new building should be integrated with the existing working farm complex and not detrimental to the respective character and appearance of the area and surrounding landscape.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

There have been no adverse representations received to date and the application is presented to the Planning Committee at the request of the Local Member.

The site is already be used for camping pitches with temporary structures on site at the time of the site visit and from the submission these have been in place for several years. However there is no existing planning permission for the site. The applicant refers to pre- application advice where they feel they were informed that planning permission was not required. However the advice was that no planning permission is required where a licence from the Caravan and Camping Club is obtained. No such licence is in place for the site and therefore planning permission is required.

The pre-application advice given is repeated below

“The site is located outside the development limits of any recognised settlement and approximately 2.3km from the nearest recognised settlement as delineated by the Carmarthenshire UDP. The site would be located to the north of the existing yard.

The proposed camping pods appear to be temporary structures however additional information would be needed in order to confirm this. The comments below are based on the assumption that they would be considered temporary structures.

The site would be considered against policies relating to touring caravans and camping sites. Policy TRS9 of the Carmarthenshire UDP relates to such proposals. This requires sites to be related to a settlement. As mentioned above the site is distant from any recognised settlement. The proposal also refers to permanent structures being required such as shower and toilet blocks. The policy states that such sites should not include any new buildings and therefore this would be a concern.

As part of the application the Authority would assess whether access arrangements at the site were appropriate and the surrounding road network could accommodate any additional traffic. Ponds are shown and it is unclear if these are existing structures. The visual impact of the proposal and its impact on ecology would also be assessed as part of the proposal. If new ponds are proposed these would also require planning permission.

If a licence is obtained from the Caravan and Camping Club then the provision of a small number of temporary accommodation facilities can be allowed without requiring planning permission. This would not include any permanent buildings or the ponds and would be dependent on the proposed structures being considered temporary.”

It is considered clear that the applicant was aware that there would be concerns with any application at that time due to the location of the site and also that further information.

The use is of a nature that can be difficult to provide within a settlement. However this does not mean that any location is appropriate. The relevant LDP, as did the equivalent policy in the UDP refers to such sites being “related” to a settlement for touring caravan and tent sites. The classification of the development was an issue raised by the Local Member. The pods on site however are not considered to fall in to the category of touring caravans or tents. They have been placed on site, do not have wheels and have remained on site for a number of years. Therefore it is considered that the assessment of them should fall under the static caravan and chalet policy TSM1. This states that such uses should only be permitted within development limits. The site is not located within any development limits. The nearest settlement to the site is some 2.9km. This is the “as the crow flies” distance and the actual distance is greater than this. Even if the development were considered to be within the tent and touring caravan policy it is not felt that it would be considered “directly related” to any settlement due to the separation and still contrary to LDP policy.

The issues of sustainability of the site were raised during pre-application discussions. It is considered relevant that the route from the site to the nearest settlement, services and facilities is along narrow country lanes. There are no dedicated pedestrian facilities and limited visibility for vehicles to see pedestrians along parts of the route. This would be likely to further discourage people from walking or cycling from the site to any settlements. The relief of the land in parts of the surrounding area would also serve to discourage more sustainable modes of transport during peoples stay at the site. The applicant has referred to a pick up service however indicated that this is not overly used. The application also

refers to people travelling away from the site during their stay. The site is some distance from a settlement and is not well served by public transport. The applicant refers to the countryside location being a key part of the attraction of the site however this could be said of numerous rural locations. As such the development is not unique and therefore could be repeated. The Local Development Plan is based on a sustainable settlement basis where the aim is to locate development in accordance with this sustainable framework distributing development to sustainable locations.

Reference is drawn to a previous appeal for a similar development in the Pembrey area. This site was located adjacent to an existing caravan site (S/15038). This site was approximately 1km from the settlement of Pembrey, closer than the current application site. Again there were no on site services or facilities. This development was for a development which was considered to fall within the touring caravan and tent policy which is less restrictive in terms of its location requirements. The Inspector considered that the site was not within easy walking distance at 1km to the settlement stating that “whilst people may be more willing to walk further distances on holiday I do not consider that journeys for basic essentials and in periods of inclement weather can reasonably be regarded as leisure walks. In such circumstances people staying at the site would use their cars for journeys to and from the village”. The Inspector also comments that although it was acknowledged that there would be economic benefits “the development would be poorly related” to the settlement and that they did not consider the proposal would amount to a sustainable form of development given its location and would be contrary to national planning policy”. As with the site referred to in the appeal there are not sufficient reasons to justify the proposal as an exception to the policies aimed at achieving sustainable forms of development. The inspector also referred to it being difficult to refuse other similar applications if that appeal had been allowed. Again here if this proposal were approved there would be likely to be similar future difficulties.

There have been some changes to policy since the previous appeal however that stance on sustainable forms of development and the location of development has not been reduced. The appeal site was also previously developed land which would have added weight towards allowing the proposal. Here the site is a Greenfield location and therefore no such additional support is given.

The applicant has made reference to the farm diversification policy in support of the development. The policy refers to a preference for the conversion of existing buildings and the site being located on the existing farm complex. This proposal would not fit with either of these. There is a need to balance the economic benefits of development against any harm it may cause. Planning Policy Wales and various Technical Advice Notes make reference to such considerations. However as stated above this is not a unique form of development and it is one that could be repeated elsewhere. The repetition of such proposals would lead to excessive sporadic developments where the LDP aims to follow a sustainable framework. It is acknowledged that the business brings benefits to the holding however it is not considered that these outweigh the harm.

The existing access to the site is used for the camping pods and is currently used for the farm. A response is awaited from the Head of Transport. If improvements are proposed then conditions could be imposed if the application were recommended for approval to require a detailed landscape design scheme for any works to the roadside hedge and to achieve any improvement required.

The site is largely screened from near views to the north due to the relief of the land and the boundary vegetation. The site is also some distance from any settlements. The site can be viewed from some wider views to the south where the land slopes away. Permanent use is sought rather than seasonal and it appears the pods and other structures have been in place since 2012. There are ancillary structures in the form of sheds and also one of the pods as a toilet/shower facility. The fact that a site is not overly visible does not mean that the location is acceptable.

CONCLUSION

After careful consideration of the site and its surrounding environs in the context of this application, together with the representations received to date it is considered that on balance the proposal is not acceptable and does not accord with policy.

In light of the above, this application is put forward with a recommendation for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL

REASONS

1 The proposal is contrary to Policy TSM1 Static Caravan and Chalet Sites of the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan:-

Policy TSM1 Static Caravan and Chalet Sites Proposals for new static caravan and chalet sites will only be permitted within the Development Limits of a defined settlement (Policy SP3).

Proposals for the enhancement and extension of existing static and chalet sites will only be permitted where:

In that:

 The site is located outside of development limits, is not related to any settlement and is distant from settlements, services and facilities. Due to location of the site and the nature of the route between the site and the nearest settlements, services and facilities the journeys to and from the site to would heavily reliant on private transport and therefore be unsustainable.

2 The proposal is contrary to Policy SP1 Sustainable Places and Spaces of the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan:-

SP1 Sustainable Places and Spaces Proposals for development will be supported where they reflect sustainable development and design principles by:

a. Distributing development to sustainable locations in accordance with the settlement framework, supporting the roles and functions of the identified settlements; b. Promoting, where appropriate, the efficient use of land including previously developed sites; c. Integrating with the local community, taking account of character and amenity as well as cultural and linguistic considerations; d. Respecting, reflecting and, wherever possible, enhancing local character and distinctiveness; e. Creating safe, attractive and accessible environments which contribute to people’s health and wellbeing and adhere to urban design best practice; f. Promoting active transport infrastructure and safe and convenient sustainable access particularly through walking and cycling; g. Utilising sustainable construction methods where feasible; h. Improving social and economic wellbeing; i. Protect and enhance the area’s biodiversity value and where appropriate, seek to integrate nature conservation into new development.

In that:

 The proposal would go against the principle of distributing development to sustainable locations in accordance with the settlement framework, supporting the roles and functions of the identified settlements. The site is located outside of development limits, is not related to any settlement and is distant from settlements, services and facilities. Due to location of the site and the nature of the route between the site and the nearest settlements, services and facilities the journeys to and from the site to would heavily reliant on private transport and therefore be unsustainable.