Conversion of building into a
holiday unit
LOCAL
MEMBER: Councillor Aled Wyn Jones
Decision:
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.
Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents: