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)

 

          Attention was drawn to the additional observations.

 

(a)      The Planning Manager elaborated on the background to the application, reminding members that a decision had been made at the Committee meeting on 25 June to defer the decision in order to receive additional information about the cumulative impact of holiday units in the locality. It was reiterated that the application involved demolishing an existing shed and constructing two single-storey holiday units.   It was noted that an amended report had been distributed to members.

 

In terms of the principle of the development, it was noted that Policy TWR 2 of the LDP supported the development of new permanent holiday accommodation with services, or self-serviced ones, to convert existing buildings into such accommodation or to extend existing holiday accommodation establishments.

 

Reference was made to the additions to the amended report drawing specific attention to paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4 that related to additional information submitted by the agent along with information gathered by planning officers that responded to the Committee's concern about the cumulative impact of holiday accommodation developments. It was highlighted that these paragraphs explained that holiday homes and holiday accommodation were not considered to be the same thing in planning terms; therefore, it was very difficult to consider holiday homes when assessing the cumulative impact of holiday accommodation. Reference was made to information in the report that had been provided by the Council's Taxation Unit regarding the number of holiday accommodation units in the Nefyn district (which included Nefyn, Morfa Nefyn and Edern). Members were reminded that matters such as visual and general amenities and transport had already been discussed; therefore, specific attention was only drawn to additional information. The cumulative impact of holiday units in this area was only 3.8%.

 

(b)       Exercising his right to speak, the Local Member noted the following main points:

·         That Councillors of bordering wards shared his concerns

·         There was no clear difference between the meaning of holiday homes and holiday units. The definition was no longer clear following the tax increase (up to 50%).

·         A substantial increase was seen in holiday homes being converted into holiday units in order to avoid paying tax and to take advantage of TWR 2 to construct more holiday units in gardens.

·         A Holiday Home was a Holiday Home, namely a house that was unavailable for local people but associated with increasing market prices that prevented local people from living in their native areas.

·         There were many more than what had been included in the report - Officers had not included an additional 318 holiday homes within the district and they had not considered the relationship of the neighbouring village of Pistyll with Nefyn or the Natural Retreats development.

·         Static caravans had not been considered.

·         This created a detrimental impact on the use of the Welsh language. The number of Welsh speakers had decreased since the previous census.

·         Was there a real need for additional units?

·         What was excess? A clear figure was required before implementing TWR 2.

·         An additional two did not seem to be a lot; but two, every so often, would increase the numbers.

·         Nothing prevented the applicant from stating that the business units were unviable, and therefore, a condition could be removed and the houses sold on the open market - too easy to remove conditions.

·         The broader picture had to be examined.

 

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

 

         The seconder suggested the use of TWR 2.5 as a reason for refusal - excess.  A question was asked whether or not the business was viable. It was highlighted that the Ty'n Pwll business plan referred to other holiday homes nearby, which suggested that the business would take business away from others, which could be evidence of excess. When considering planning guidelines relating to the identified field, it was recommended that a better definition of excess should be obtained following a period of consultation.

 

(ch)   During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:

·         It was a zinc hut - how many were there in our areas that could not be adapted under TWR 2?

·         Excess - Demand and need? No need here.

·         Playing on words by differentiating between holiday homes and holiday accommodation.

·         Lack of clear definition created a very worrying situation.

 

·         Holiday units were being managed.

·         Visitors brought benefit to the local economy.

·         If refused on grounds of excess, what would the situation be if the application were referred to an appeal?

 

(d)    In response to the observations, the Senior Planning Manager noted that he acknowledged the arguments of the Local Member along with the observations of the proposer and the seconder in terms of 'holiday' density - he noted that there was a need to be clear when considering the definition. He emphasised that it was an application for holiday accommodation and not an application for a permanent house. Should the application be approved, a usual condition would be included to restrict use to holiday use only. He referred to the latest submitted statistics which corresponded to the definition of holiday accommodation within the district. In terms of the planning officers, he noted that the definition, the numbers, and the recommendation were accurate and robust. Members were forewarned that refusing would entail a risk of appeal and costs to the Council, and if the decision were to go against the recommendation, the proposer and seconder would have to lead the Council's defence in the appeal with the support of officers.

 

In response to an observation regarding a robust definition of a holiday home / holiday accommodation, he highlighted that the law defined what a house was; thus, should the definition need to be changed, lobbying would be required to seek an adjustment.

 

In response to an observation that a robust definition of excess did not exist and that, therefore, it was a matter for the Committee to determine whether or not an application was excessive, the Senior Planning Manager reiterated that the Committee had to consider the statistics presented.

        

A registered vote was called on the recommendation and over a quarter of the Members present voted in favour of this.

 

In accordance with the Procedural Rules, the following vote was recorded on the recommendation:-

 

In favour (7)

 

Councillors Berwyn Parry Jones, Eric Merfyn Jones, Huw Wyn Jones, Dilwyn Lloyd, Catrin Wager, Eirwyn Williams and Owain Williams

 

Against (4)

 

Councillors Stephen Churchman, Anne Lloyd-Jones, Edgar Owen and Cemlyn Williams

 

Abstaining (1)

 

Councillor Louise Hughes

 

 

RESOLVED to refuse the application.

 

Reasons - excess - use TWR 2.5 as a reason for refusal