Agenda item

Change of use of former public house into holiday accomodation.

 

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Elfed W. Williams

 

Link to relevant background documents

Change of use of former public house into holiday accommodation.

 

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the application had been deferred at the Committee held on 5 November 2018 for officers to consult on the business plan and consider this as part of the assessment.  

 

         It was explained that the application was to convert the derelict The Bull Inn public house in Deiniolen into self-serviced holiday accommodation with eight bedrooms. The development involved a considerable change to the internal layout of the building but there would not be a significant change to the external appearance.

 

         It was noted that the public house had been closed since 2016 and had been for sale for over a year (between July 2016 and October 2017) and advertised at a low price (£75,000). Should the public house business be viable, it was considered that it would be reasonable to expect that new managers for the business would have come forward during that period. It had to be borne in mind that another public house, namely "The Wellington", was within 20m of this building.

 

         It was highlighted that Policy TWR 2 of the JLDP supports the development of permanent holiday accommodation by converting existing buildings provided that proposals are of high quality. It was noted that there was justification to call the development one of high quality.

 

         It was noted that it was believed that the potential to cause detriment to amenities such as noise and disturbance was more likely from the authorised use, such as a public house, than there would be from self-serviced holiday accommodation as proposed here. 

 

         Attention was drawn to the fact that the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal. In considering the authorised use of the building as a public house, it was not deemed that this development would be likely to cause substantially worse difficulties than the authorised situation. It was noted that the Transportation Unit stated that public parking was available in car parks and on the street within a reasonable distance to the facility.

 

         Reference was made to the business plan submitted by the applicant that explained that the intention was to convert the public house into high quality accommodation for up to 20 guests and stated that there were no similar facilities for large groups, and of this quality, available locally. Attention was drawn to the additional observations received from the Tourism, Marketing and Customer Care Service together with the Council's Rates Unit.

 

         The development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons noted in the report.

 

(b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s representative noted the following main points:-

·         It was proposed to provide high quality accommodation for groups at a competitive price;

·         The proposal complied with the policies in the JLDP;

·         The change of use into holiday accommodation on the second floor had already been approved;

·         The building had been advertised for sale for a period of 12 months for a price of £75,000, if use as a public house was viable then it would have been bought and re-opened;

·         That such developments in other places were successful and contributed to the local economy;

·         There were only three buildings within 20 miles to the site that had provision of the same standard and size;

·         That the Tourism Unit identified the need for quality accommodation for groups;  

·         There was parking provision at the rear of the building and the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal;

·         The proposal would bring benefits to the local economy;

·         The development would bring a building back into use before its condition deteriorated further.

 

(c)     The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main points:-

·         The application before them was an improvement on the application refused, however, the size of the rooms remained small. Would it be possible to confirm the size of the rooms?

·         One bedroom had doors opening out towards the back of the site and looked out onto a wall, this was not quality accommodation;

·         The proposal was contrary to Policy TWR 2 of the JLDP as it was not high quality accommodation;

·         Concern that problems would arise similar to Noddfa Hostel;

·         Concern regarding the parking provision, lack of parking spaces on the street; 

·         There were strong local feelings and many letters of objection had been submitted; 

·         An objector's letter noted that the development of the building was welcomed, however, it was necessary to consider the application in the context of other similar applications submitted. There had been an increase in the number of similar applications that led to the Anglicisation of the area.

 

(ch)  In response to the local member’s observations, the Planning Manager noted:

·         That the size of the rooms varied to respond to the requirements of individuals and families, it was considered that their size were acceptable.

·         The doors looking out towards a wall was a matter of opinion;

·         The parking provision was acceptable with some parking space at the back of the building and two public car parks nearby. Given the existing use, more parking provision may be needed in association with this use compared to the proposed use;

·         That the current figures indicated a low percentage of this type of provision in the ward; 

·         That other planning applications were considered on their own merits;

·         That the proposed provision was of high quality and was in accordance with policy requirements. 

 

(d)     It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application contrary to the officers’ recommendation.

 

During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:

·         That it was a local public house that was in question and it was local people who used the establishment and therefore it could not be stated that there was a need for more parking provision with the current use;

·         The accommodation provision would be for up to 20 guests that could lead to 20 cars, the parking provision was not sufficient for this number of cars;

·         There were parking problems in Deiniolen due to the high density of housing;

·         Concern regarding the impact of the proposal on residential amenities in terms of noise. There was some control of use of a public house with opening hours;

·         Uncertainty if it was quality accommodation;

·         That the public house had a Welsh feel and there was a danger to the area's culture and language;

·         There was potential for the proposal and in terms of the Anglicisation of the area, the provision was for holiday use;  

·         Consideration should be given to conduct a site inspection visit to assess the proximity of the building to other buildings and the parking provision;  

·         The fact that up to 20 guests could stay in the building in eight bedrooms raised questions about the business plan;

·         It was a shame to lose a public house but there was no wish for the building's condition to get any worse.

 

(dd)   An amendment was proposed to conduct a site inspection visit. The amendment was seconded.

 

RESOLVED to conduct a site inspection visit.