Demolish existing storage unit and construction of 2 holiday units (revised application)
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Gruffydd Williams
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
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
Supporting documents: