Agenda item

Demolish existing storage unit and construction of 2 holiday units (revised application).

 

 

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Gruffydd Williams

 

 

Link to relevant background documents

Demolish existing storage unit and build two holiday units (amended application)

 

(a)     The Senior Development Control Officer expanded on the application’s background and noted that the site was located in the countryside and within the Llŷn and Bardsey Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest.  Access was gained to the site along an unclassified road which had access to a class 2 road approximately 85 metres south of the site. 

 

Reference was made to the responses to the consultation process together with the relevant planning policies within the report.

 

It was noted that policy TWR 2 of the Local Development Plan supported the development of new permanent holiday accommodation provided they are of a high quality in terms of design, setting and appearance.  The policy also enables new build accommodation, if the development is located within a development boundary, or makes use of a suitable previously developed site.   There was an existing holiday unit at Ty'n Pwll Cottage and the proposal in question would therefore extend the existing holiday accommodation establishment.   It was therefore considered that the development was acceptable in terms of the principle of building new accommodation units.

 

It was explained that the application was a resubmission of a previously refused application, as it was considered that the scale of the proposal in question was excessive for the site and did not reflect its surroundings. In terms of the number of units and design, it was considered that the proposal in question was an improvement on the previous application.   

 

The Transportation Unit had no objection in terms of transport and access matters.

 

Having assessed the proposal against the relevant policies and considered all the responses and observations, it was considered that the use, design and proposed materials were acceptable and that they would not impair the amenities, character or appearance of the site, nor the surrounding area.  The planning officers’ recommendation was to approve the application and to include a condition to restrict the use to holiday accommodation only and to maintain a register of users.

 

(a)         The local member noted that he did not support the application for the following reasons: 

 

·         that there was no shortage or demand for more holiday accommodation 

·         that demolishing the hay shed and constructing two units in its place would set a precedent for similar future applications 

·         approval should not be given for the conversion of such farm buildings 

 

(b)         A Member supported the above observations and stated further that there were plenty of holiday homes and gave an example of four houses that had been sold recently in the village of Edern as holiday homes.    There was also concern about the tendency to re-name and Anglicise house names.    Housing estates in the village had holiday homes and it was asked how many of these houses had registered as holiday units for business tax.

 

(c)          It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application on the grounds of an excess of holiday homes.

 

(dd)     In response, the Planning Manager explained that officers could be requested to undertake more research in order to assess the cumulative impact of holiday units, however, it was explained that competition was not a planning matter.   However, it was stressed that policy TW2 permitted new buildings on appropriate sites and the officers were of the view that the site in question was appropriate.

 

(d)          The Senior Solicitor added that they had to be mindful if they refused the application now as there was no numerical evidence.

 

(e)       As a result of the above discussion, it was proposed and seconded to defer the determination of the application until more evidence was received regarding the numbers of holiday units and the cumulative impact, including information on the number of holiday accommodation units that have registered as a business.

 

(ff)       In response, a Member disagreed with the above amendment and made an appeal to receive a balanced, unbiased report that reflected the actual situation regarding the number of holiday units in the area. He was of the opinion that it was possible to investigate the registration for business tax. He currently felt strongly that insufficient evidence had been presented with the application.  A Member added that evidence could be gathered through the increase in litter collections to businesses registered as holiday units. 

 

(f)        It was suggested that it would be possible for local members to assist by presenting information regarding how many holiday units were available in their areas.  

 

(ng) In response, the Planning Manager noted that a business plan had been submitted, however, it may not address the members' concerns as outlined above and an assurance was given that the officers would further investigate the cumulative impact.    

 

(g)       The Senior Solicitor added, whilst he accepted that every Member had local information, that the application could not be refused until the specific statistics were received from the officers and evidence from local members could contribute to this.  

 

A vote was taken on the amendment to defer and it was carried.

 

RESOLVED:       To defer the application until a balanced report is received to include information regarding the cumulative impact of holiday accommodation units on the local area.