Agenda item

Retrospective application to convert an outbuilding to holiday let. 

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elwyn Jones

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: Conduct a site visit

 

Retrospective application to convert an outbuilding to a holiday let.

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form which included a response to concerns about the development in the context of the quality and safety of the construction work, how the building can be used without planning permission and whether appropriate insurance was in place.

 

a)         The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a retrospective application to convert an outbuilding to a holiday let. Because the above proposal had already been completed without planning permission, a retrospective application was submitted. It was explained that the unit had been an outbuilding which was being used as an ancillary use to the Plas Coch property. The outbuilding had now been renovated and converted into one modern holiday unit.

 

It was highlighted that the principle of the proposal was assessed against policy TWR 2 'Holiday Accommodation' in the Local Development Plan (LDP) that permitted proposals that involved the provision of self-serviced holiday accommodation provided the proposal complied with a series of criteria, i.e.:

                  i.         In the case of new build accommodation, that the development is located within a development boundary, or makes use of a suitable previously developed site;

                 ii.        That the scale of the proposed development is appropriate given the site, the location and/or the dwelling in question;

                iii.        That the proposal will not result in a loss of permanent housing stock; 

                iv.        That the development is not sited within a primarily residential area or does not significantly harm the residential character of an area; 

                 v.         That the development does not lead to an over-concentration of such accommodation within the area.

 

When considering the criteria, it was noted that the building already existed and was not a new building - it made good use of a building that had been used as ancillary to the residential property.  The building was located within the curtilage of the existing property and therefore made use of a suitable previously developed site. It was believed that the scale was reasonable as it did not create a holiday let that was excessively large, and because the unit was already being used as an outbuilding it did not lead to the loss of permanent housing stock. It was added that the unit was located in a rural area close to individual dwellings that were scattered around, and as such it did not cause significant harm to the area's residential character as there were scattered residential dwellings around the location.

 

It was noted that any application to convert existing buildings should include a full structural survey report by a qualified person noting that the building would be structurally sound for conversion without requiring substantial reconstruction, adaptations or extensions. It was noted that no structural report had been included to accompany the application as the property had already been converted - there was no value to a structural report as the changes had already been completed on the site.

 

There was a reference to paragraph 3.2.1 TAN 23: Economic Development, which noted that the re-use and adaptation of existing rural buildings had an important role to play in meeting the needs of rural areas for commercial and industrial development, and tourism, sport and recreation. It emphasised the need for the building in question to be suitable for the proposed use.

 

When considering over-concentration and responding to the criterion - "that the development would not lead to an over-concentration of such accommodation in the area", it was highlighted that it should be ensured that a Business Plan was submitted as part of the application to include the necessary information in terms of the vision for the proposal and to ensure there was a market for this type of use (paragraph 6.3.67 of the JLDP). It was noted that a Business Plan had been submitted with the planning application, outlining the proposal and how the development added to the local economy through tourism. To this end it was considered that the Business Plan met this relevant criterion.

 

In the context of visual matters, although the proposal did not involve any change to the size of the outbuilding, there were changes to the front elevation with glass being installed on most of the elevation. As well as this, a roof-light was being installed, and other windows and doors were being repositioned, and the building's finish was completely different to that of the former building. It was not believed that the proposal would disrupt the visual amenities of the area as a whole, nor that it would have a significantly negative impact on the Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest.

 

Attention was drawn, however, to concerns received that the unit did not blend in with the landscape and that original materials had been removed and replaced by alternative materials. There were also concerns that the change to the building was causing a negative visual impact, however, the plans did not show a change in the shape or size of the original building. It was highlighted that there was a substantial change to the front elevation with the developer having installed glass along the elevation, but the elevation did not directly face nearby housing, and the elevation was not overly noticeable from the road as it was the side elevation that faced the access road. Although the original materials were not retained, the materials used were not considered unacceptable and they did not affect the character of the area significantly enough to cause a negative impact. This meant that the proposal was acceptable and met the requirements of Policy PCYFF 3, PS 20 and AT 1 of the LDP.

 

In the context of general and residential amenities, it was noted that although the building's appearance had changed somewhat, it was not believed that the changes were excessive, and consequently they did not affect the setting of the unit on the site. Although it could be argued that the changes made were modern changes that did not complement the rural character and feel of the area, it was not believed that this effect was substantial enough to be considered unacceptable in policy terms, since the shape and scale of the unit remained unchanged.

 

In the context of transport and access matters, it was noted that there were concerns regarding the location of the holiday unit on a narrow road which was used by local people. There were concerns that the holiday let use would make this narrow lane busier and affect the amenities of nearby residents. The Transportation Unit was consulted regarding this matter and the unit had no objection regarding this element of the development. It was reported that parking spaces had been designated for the holiday unit, and the residential property had a garage on site.

 

Despite asking the applicant several times for a Language statement, no such statement was received. The guidance contained in Appendix 5 stated that all retail, commercial or industrial developments that are not required to submit a Welsh Language Statement/Assessment should demonstrate how consideration had been given to the language. In this case, the policies of the plan supported tourism developments according to specific criteria that relate to over-provision, therefore it was considered in this case and since the proposal complied with the requirements of the relevant policies, that the proposal was unlikely to have a harmful impact on the language. In addition, it was also possible to impose a condition to ensure that bilingual signs were used on the site and therefore it was considered that the proposal was acceptable in respect of policy PS1 of the relevant SPG.

 

Reference was made to several concerns received during the public consultation with some of them being non-planning issues. The Local Planning Authority had no control over the fact that the original property on the site was also holiday accommodation, as there was currently the right to change use from a residential property to holiday accommodation without planning permission. It was emphasised, in this case, that it would be the plans that were the subject of the application that would be approved, and that it was the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the development conformed to what had been permitted.

 

It was therefore considered that the proposal met the requirements of the relevant policies and was acceptable for approval.

 

b)         Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the following observations:

·         That there were good examples of barns that had been converted, but unfortunately this was not one of them

·         No collaboration/discussions had taken place between the applicant and the neighbours during the development

·         The community did not agree with the proposal - it was unacceptable and they disagreed with the officers' opinion

·         Imposing conditions would not address the concerns

·         That there was a change to the size and height of the original building - these statements were incorrect

·         That the suggestion that planning permission was not required was incorrect

·         That there was an impact on the privacy of neighbours - with the glass at the front of the building, the entire building appeared as if it had been lit up - this was contrary to dark sky principles

·         That access to the property was gained along a shared track - that the hedge was 'open' to the track and therefore gave the impression that people were prying around the site. The ivy, which was on the original hedge that screened the property had been removed. New screening would take years to mature

·         That local builders or materials were not used

·         That use of the hot tub created noise - this was a quiet area.

 

c)         Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant made the following observations:

·         That the barn was in poor condition

·         That he had converted an existing building into an AirBnB - of good standard in a good location

·         That he had invested a lot of money to deliver the enterprise

·         He had received no complaints

·         That he employed local people to clean, garden and clean the windows

·         That he had carried out a survey of the number of AirBnBs in the area

·         That he was addressing the concern of 'seeing into the property' by adapting the windows and increasing planting to screen the property better

·         His wish was to work and live locally

 

ch)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following observations:

·         That this was a retrospective application

·         The property had now been converted from an outbuilding to a luxury building - the development had been underway for some time

·         Several complaints had been received over the years about the development - disturbing the peace of close neighbours and having to put up with the problems caused by transporting materials to the site

·         It was obvious from the adaptations that there was a need for planning permission

·         The Community Council had expressed its objection

·         That the adaptations were substantial - the roof and windows - were higher than the original - a full application should have been submitted

·         Photographs of the old building were needed to compare size

·         Enforcement officers visited the site in November 2022 - no information was received from this visit

·         Suggested that the Planning Committee visits the site

 

d)         It was proposed and seconded to undertake a site visit to attempt to get a better understanding of the impact of the development on neighbours' privacy, and to see the scale of the development in its context

 

dd)    During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:

·         That Planning regulations were put in place for a reason - there was a lack of respect here

·         Concern about a lack of sharing information and disregard of correspondence

·         That overlooking was a concern

 

RESOLVED: To conduct a site visit