Home » Plans for 185 storage containers at Menai Bridge caravan site rejected
Anglesey Anglesey North Wales Politics

Plans for 185 storage containers at Menai Bridge caravan site rejected

An image of the proposed storage containers plan at Menai Bridge (Pic: IoACC Planning Documents)

AN APPLICATION by a Menai Bridge caravan firm to site 185 storage containers has been turned down by island planners.

Anglesey County Council had received a full application for the change of use of agricultural land on Pentraeth Road.

The application had concerned Môn Caravans Ltd, at Four Crosses, and was a bid to site 185 storage containers together with associated works.

Plans stated: “The applicant is the site owner/occupier of Môn Caravans Ltd.

“The applicant is a major local employer and operator of caravan sites and storage container depots in Ynys Mon.

“The proposal is presented as a commercial economic development application for full planning permission.”

The plans stated they would represent an “extension of the existing storage site”.

They presented “no building demolition, new buildings or structures”.

It was also argued that ground disturbance was “limited to creating a nature pond” and groundworks would “reduce the existing site level, purposely to avert visual impact, north east”.

They added: “Excavated soil, clay and stone would be used to construct bunding along the site’s north eastern perimeter, to avert visual impact, as well as additional biodiversity net gain.

online casinos UK

The council refused permission. Chief planning officer Dewi Francis Jones said the proposal would lead to an “unacceptable built form of development into the open countryside contrary to policy”.

It was also stated that “no compelling evidence has been submitted with the planning application to justify the need for the development outside of the development boundary contrary to policy”.

It added: “Extensive engineering works and bundings surrounding the site would fail to respect the natural contours of the landscape.”

The plan was also rejected on grounds that “it would fail to retain or complement existing positive natural features of the site contrary to policy”.

Author