Agenda item

Conversion of building into a holiday unit 

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Aled Wyn Jones

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to refuse:

 

1.    It is considered that the proposal is contrary to the requirements of criteria 2(i) and (ii) of Policy TWR 2 as well as criterion 3(i) of Policy CYF 6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017 and to the advice included in Supplementary Planning Guidance: Replacement Dwellings and Conversions in the Countryside’ and Technical Advice Note 23: Economic Development due to the fragile and dilapidated condition of the existing structure.    

 

2.    The proposal involves the creation of new holiday accommodation in open countryside away from the main road network. It is not considered that the proposal makes use of a suitable site in the countryside as it is an unsustainable site where the majority of the visitors would be dependent on private vehicle use. The proposal, therefore, does not comply with the relevant requirements of policies PS 14 and PS 5 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, 2017, along with the advice contained in Supplementary Planning Guidance: Tourist Facilities and Accommodation and Maintaining and Creating Distinctive and Sustainable Communities, Technical Advice Note 18:  Transportation and Planning Policy Wales, Edition 11, 2021.

 

Conversion of a building into a Holiday Unit, including associated work of providing a parking space and installation of a private sewerage treatment system.

           

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

 

a)    The Development Control Officer highlighted that the application was a resubmission of an application that was refused last year to adapt and extend a ruin into a self-contained holiday unit at Uwch Hafoty, Trefor. Attention was drawn to the structure which was a ruin with no roof and with unobstructed access to it. It was explained that converting and extending it would involve erecting a new roof and chimneys, which would probably be higher than the original cottage, and it was intended to retain the original openings and install rooflights in the new roof.

 

It was reported that the site was located in the countryside on the steep northern slopes of Yr Eifl to the south-west of the village of Trefor, with a narrow and steep public access road leading up from the village - the access track to the site itself was also steep and  part of the Wales Coastal Path. The site was within the AONB, Llŷn Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest and close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

 

It was highlighted that the main matters of the application were the condition and suitability of the structure for development. It was reported that a Structural Report had been received from a competent person, which related to a survey of the site and noted that a test hole had been excavated sometime in the past (no specific date), which confirmed that the building's foundations were set on shale. The Survey concluded due to the thickness of the existing walls and the fact that the foundations were on rock, that the structure of the house was solid and re-roofing and re-pointing the walls, together with reducing land at the rear of the building would make it habitable. 

 

Attention was drawn to the site’s extensive Planning history. It was highlighted that another three applications and an appeal, had all been refused to convert the ruin into a house with the same principles applicable, whether it was converted into a house or holiday unit. It was considered that the structure had lost its residential status for many years, with the record of the first refusal dating back to 1989, namely 32 years ago which referred to the structure as a ruin back then; that information within the appeal refused in 2009 noting that the residential use ended in the 1960s, whilst the roof had demolished in 1977.

 

Reference was made to the Supplementary Planning Guidance - Replacement Dwellings and Conversions in the Countryside, which provided clear guidance on converting a building into a house or holiday accommodation, which stated:

 

Any building in the countryside proposed for conversion should be a permanent building of sound construction. Developments that include substantial rebuilding work will not be approved, as this would equate to the construction of a new building. It goes on to note that Any building in the countryside that is in such a dilapidated condition where substantial parts of it would have to be replaced or that the building would have to be completely replaced, will not be acceptable.

 

Therefore, bearing in mind that the planning history including the appeal decision has consistently stated over the years that re-using this ruin would not be acceptable, it is evident that the site is unsuitable for development. Concerns were raised about the condition of the structure in the appeal almost 13 years ago, therefore, it stands to reason that the condition has not improved over the years and most likely it has deteriorated as it is very open to the elements in such a location. The results of the Structural Report had not undoubtedly convinced officers that the existing structure could be converted into a living unit without firstly undertaking extensive structural work to it, therefore it could be argued that re-establishing the structure would be tantamount to erecting a new house in the countryside.   

 

It was considered that the proposal to convert was unacceptable due to the vulnerable condition of the structure and its unsustainable location in the countryside away from the main roads network and therefore in line with the decision and previous outcomes, it was recommended to refuse the application.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the local member made the following points:

·         That the applicant was a local person and a builder - strongly believed in protecting the character and nature of the countryside

·         That the proposal did not extend the property - the same footprint would be retained.

·         That there were no objections - the Community Council and AONB were supportive.

·         That the applications that had been refused proposed an extension - this was an application to convert without extending.

·         The structural report noted sound walls and foundations to support a new roof.

·         Restoration only - no extensive work.

·         That the property had been empty for years, but it could be restored and brought back to use, rather than demolishing it and polluting the landscape.

·         That local people needed to be supported - to keep them local.

 

c)    It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.

 

RESOLVED: To delegate powers to the Senior Planning Manager to refuse:

 

1.    It was considered that the proposal was contrary to the requirements of criteria 2 (i) and (ii) of Policy TWR 2 as well as criteria 3(i) of Policy CYF 6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2017, and to the advice contained in the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Replacement Houses and Conversions in the Countryside and Technical Advice Note 23: Economic Development, due to the vulnerable and dilapidated condition of the existing structure. 

 

2.    The proposal involves the creation of new holiday accommodation in open countryside away from the main road network. It is not considered that the proposal makes use of a suitable site in the countryside as it is an unsustainable site where the majority of the visitors would be dependent on private vehicle use. The proposal, therefore, does not comply with the relevant requirements of policies PS 14 and PS 5 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan, 2017, along with the advice contained in Supplementary Planning Guidance: Tourist Facilities and Accommodation and Maintaining and Creating Distinctive and Sustainable Communities, Technical Advice Note 18:  Transportation and Planning Policy Wales, Edition 11, 2021.