Agenda item

Change of use of former public house into holiday accommodation

 

LOCAL MEMBER: COUNCILLOR ELFED WILLIAMS

 

Link to relevant background documents

         Change of use of vacant public house into holiday accommodation

 

          Attention was drawn to the additional observations that had been received.

 

          The Members had visited the site.

 

          It was noted that the applicant had submitted an appeal due to a lack of decision.

        

(a)       The Planning Manager elaborated on the background to the application, reminding members that a decision had been made at the Committee meeting on 26 November to defer the decision in order to conduct a site visit. It was noted that the application was to convert the derelict The Bull Inn public house located on the High Street in Deiniolen into self-serviced holiday accommodation with eight bedrooms. This 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 explained that the public house had been closed since 2016 and had been for sale for over a year. Reference was made to policy TWR 2 which supported the development of permanent holiday accommodation by converting existing buildings provided that proposals were of high quality in terms of design, appearance and setting. It was considered that the application was of high quality and was in accordance with policy requirements. 

 

It was highlighted that the Transportation Unit had not noted any objection to the proposal but an objection was received alleging that there was a lack of local parking spaces. 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 situation as a public house or flats.

                                                                                                                                                  

It was explained that in cases like this, the former use of the site needed to be considered, and the likely increase as a result of the new proposal. Here, the previous situation was a public house of a substantial size and a four bedroom home above, centrally located within a village. The proposal increased the number of bedrooms but removed the 'public house' element and it was presumed that there were sufficient opportunities for visitors to park on the streets and in local car parks if they were visiting the site in a vehicle. It was suggested that there would be less 'coming and going' with holiday accommodation and there would be less disturbance.

 

It was noted that a business plan had been submitted with the application, and that observations of the Council's Tourism Unit had been received which confirmed that there was a demand for good quality self-catering units for groups in the county. It was added that, according to the latest figures, there is 1.75% of self-service holiday accommodation in the ward, which confirmed that there was not an excess of this type of holiday accommodation in the area.

 

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

·           That there were insufficient parking spaces in this cumulative area

·           Many residents already complained about the lack of parking spaces

·           20 additional cars would increase these concerns

 

(c)     It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application due to a lack of parking spaces. It was noted that it was unreasonable to compare the use of a public house with holiday accommodation use.

 

(ch)   The Senior Development Control Engineer noted that there was a need to keep the number of likely cars in perspective. He highlighted that the situation had been measured as one bedroom equating to one vehicle. At worst, eight additional vehicles would be considered (and not 20). This would be acceptable for the area and it would not have a detrimental impact on the village.

 

(d)     In further response to the proposal of objecting due to parking reasons, the Senior Planning Manager noted that the situation was not likely to be worse than the use of the building as a public house.

 

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

·         What other use was there for the Bull? It appeared that there was no use for it as a public house and that the building was too large for a business. It could be an investment for the village and could contribute to the local economy

·         There was no desire to see the building deteriorating any further and viewing it as an eyesore in the village centre. It would be sad to see it vacant in another 10 years.

·         The proposal was a fair investment.

·         If it was a proposal to convert the building into houses/flats, the parking concerns would be the same

·         The proposal was an opportunity to support other businesses in the village

·         That the voice of the community should be listened to, and their concerns about parking should be taken seriously

·         An impact assessment should be carried out of the parking situation in the village

 

(e)     A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse the application

 

    Following the Chair's casting vote, the proposal fell.

 

(f)      It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

 

RESOLVED to approve the application

 

Conditions:

 

1.         Five years

2.         Work in accordance with the plans 

3.         Holiday use only condition

4.         Welsh Water Condition