Issue - meetings

Proposed change of use from chalet / bedrooms to 10no. Affordable residential units (mixture of 1 and 2 bed self contained bedsits) 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Llio Elenid Owen 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: TO REFUSE

1.     The application was considered to be contrary to policy TAI 7 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Replacement Dwellings and Conversions in the Countryside' as the building is not traditional.  As there are no other policies within the LDP which permit new residential dwellings in open countryside, it is considered that the proposal is also contrary to policy PCYFF 1.

2.     No evidence had been received of affordable local need, or information indicating that there is an appropriate mix of housing for the number and type of units proposed. As a result, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to policy TAI 7 and TAI 8.

3.     No sufficient evidence was received to show that the commercial use of the building is not viable or evidence to justify the loss of serviced holiday accommodation, which is contrary to PS 14, and criterion 1 of policy TAI 7.

4.     That the units, due to their limited size, are contrary to paragraph 4.2.30 of edition 12 of Planning Policy Wales as the units do not meet the Welsh Government's development quality standards. It is also contrary to policy TAI 8 as the proposal does not reflect a high-quality design standard that creates sustainable and inclusive communities and the units will not help create healthy and vibrant environments, and do not take into account the health and well-being of future occupiers in line with policy PCYFF 3.

Change of use of chalet / bedrooms to proposed 10 affordable residential units (mix of 1 and 2 bedrooms, self-contained units) 

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application to change the use of bedrooms to 10 affordable residential units.

In terms of the principle of the development, it was explained that policy PCYFF 1 was relevant as the site was located outside of any development boundary as defined within the LDP and the site was in open countryside. It was highlighted that the policy stated that proposals were refused unless they were in accordance with other policies within the plan or national planning policies or the proposal showed that its location in the countryside was essential.

It was reiterated that consideration to Policy TAI 7 was also important, as the proposal involved converting buildings in the countryside into living units. However, the policy only allowed the conversion of traditional buildings. Reference was made to Section 7 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 'Replacement Dwellings and Conversions in the Countryside', which defined traditional buildings as those built prior to 1919 and of 'breathable construction'. It was noted from the site's planning history that permission was given to erect the building in 1978 and therefore it will not be possible to consider the proposal against Policy TAI 7 as it would not be a conversion of a traditional building. It was noted that the guidance also noted that traditional buildings had an aesthetic value which derived from the way that people had sensible and intellectual enjoyment of the building with the character of the building often encompassing local unique features and contributed to the sense of place. In this context, it was explained that the construction was mainly made of red brick construction and modern windows that did not have a high amenity value and did not reflect the character and nature of traditional buildings in the area. Given this, the application did not meet the requirements of policy TAI 7 as the proposal did not involve a conversion of a traditional building, and as there was no other policy within the LDP that allowed provision of affordable housing in open countryside; the principle of the proposal was therefore contrary to policy PCYFF 1.

It was also explained that the application did not meet other criteria within policy TAI 7 as a structural report was not received to support the application. In addition, no evidence was received to prove the need for the affordable units and how the development had been designed to ensure an appropriate mix of housing in accordance with policy TAI 8. It was highlighted that Planning Policy Wales (PPW) required new affordable housing to reach the Welsh Government's development quality standards, and because these units, based on their size, did not meet these requirements, it was considered that the proposal was contrary to PPW. It was also considered, due to the restricted size of the units, that the proposal was contrary to policy TAI  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7