Issue - meetings

The change of use of Ground floor from Public House to Holiday Lets

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dafydd Meurig

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To refuse

The Local Planning Authority is not persuaded that the evidence submitted with the application is sufficient to demonstrate that it is not possible to continue with a community use of this building. The application is therefore contrary to Policy ISA 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 as it relates to the protection of community facilities.

Change of use of ground floor from Public House to Holiday Lets

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that this was an application for the conversion of the ground floor of an empty public house into two self-contained holiday units. The application was submitted to the committee for decision at the Local Member's request and also because of the public interest in the application. It was explained that this was the third submission of a similar scheme, and the other applications were refused due to the lack of information to justify the loss of a community resource. It was highlighted that the main difference with this application was that a Viability Report had been included with the application.

When considering the principle of the development, attention was drawn to Policy ISA 2 and the relevant criteria. It was highlighted in the report that there was no similar facility within convenient distance of the village without the use of a motor vehicle to reach it.

It was noted that the Viability Report discussed proposals from a community group to maintain a business in the pub, which concluded that such an enterprise would not be viable in this case. However, it did not appear that those conclusions were based on any detailed analysis of a particular business proposal and the community group remained of the opinion that their proposals to run a business from the site were viable and practical. It was reiterated that the Viability Report specifically relied on the views of the expert and that there was no robust financial evidence in the appropriate form submitted to support the application.

It seemed that the policy also asked for evidence of genuine attempts to market the facility. Reference was made to an e-mail which was submitted stating an effort to market the property for over 12 months, but no detailed evidence had been submitted to support this statement. In addition, it seemed that this was an effort to market the property for rent rather than an effort to sell the property as a whole as a business. A copy of a marketing advertisement was received, but there was no information to show when the property was advertised, the length of the advertising period and the response to that advertisement - there was no longer an advertisement for the property on the company's website. When assessing the information submitted with the application, it was not considered that sufficient evidence had been submitted regarding the financial situation of the business or to show that the pub had been advertised appropriately for a continuous period of at least 12 months in accordance with the requirements of the SPG and policy ISA 2.

In the context of providing self-service holiday accommodation, it was explained that there was no evidence of excess in the area and, therefore, the proposal met the relevant criteria within policy TWR 2. However, it was highlighted that policy TWR 2 aimed to protect the residential character of an area and considering that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7