Agenda item
Retrospective application to convert an outbuilding to holiday let
Local Member: Councillor Elwyn Jones
Decision:
DECISION: To defer in order to host further discussions with the applicant
- need to
discuss the mitigation measures to reduce the development's impact on
residential amenities in terms of disturbance and privacy
Minutes:
Retrospective application to convert an outbuilding to
a holiday let.
Some of Members had visited the site on the morning of
05-02-2024.
a)
The Planning Manager
highlighted that this was a full retrospective application to convert an
outbuilding to a holiday let. As the proposal had already been completed without planning permission,
a retrospective application had been 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. A decision on the application was
deferred at the Planning Committee on 15-01-24 for Members to visit the site.
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.
In considering the criteria, it was noted that the building already existed and was not a new building
- it was located within the curtilage of the existing property and made good
use of a used building that was ancillary to the residential property. It was considered that the scale was
appropriate as it did not create a holiday let that was excessively large, and
as the unit was already being used as an outbuilding it did not lead to the
loss of permanent housing stock. It was reiterated that the unit was located in a rural area near individual scattered
houses, and as a result would not cause significant damage to the residential
character of the area as it was a sprawling residential housing location.
It was highlighted that any application to convert an
existing building should include a full structural survey by a qualified person
indicating that the building would be structurally suitable for conversion
without undertaking substantial reconstruction, alterations
and extensions. It was noted that no
structural report had been included with the application as the property had
already been converted - there was no value to a structural report as the
alterations had already been completed on 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 was emphasised that the building in
question needed to be suitable for 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 LDP). 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 the
majority of the elevation. As well as this, a roof-light, 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 deemed that the
proposal would detract from the visual amenities of the area, nor that it would
have a significantly negative impact on the Landscape of Outstanding Historic
Interest.
However, attention was drawn to concerns received that
the unit did not fit in with the landscape and that original materials had been
removed and replaced with other materials. It was reiterated that concerns that
the alteration 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 significant 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 had not been 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 development 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 matters, it
was noted that although the building's appearance had changed somewhat, the
changes were not considered excessive, and consequently did not affect the
setting of the unit on the site. Although it could be argued that the changes
made were modern, contrary to the character and the rural sense of the area,
the impact was not considered significant enough to be considered unacceptable
and it was not believed that this impact was substantial enough to be
considered unacceptable in terms of the policy as the shape and scale of the
unit remained unchanged.
In the context of transport and access matters, it was
noted that there were concerns about the location of the holiday unit on a
narrow road which was used by local people. There were concerns about the
holiday unit use that 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.
Although the applicant was asked several times for a Language statement, no statement had been received. It was noted that
the guidance contained in Appendix 5 stated that all retail, commercial or
industrial developments where a Welsh Language Statement/Assessment was not
needed to be submitted should demonstrate how consideration had been given to
the language. In this case, the policies of the plan supported tourism
developments in line with specific criteria that related to over-provision,
therefore it was considered in this case and as the proposal complied with the
requirements of the relevant policies, the proposal was unlikely to have a
harmful impact on the Welsh 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 and 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 a 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 noted that the development was completed
without the necessary Planning permission and was consequently an 'unauthorised
development'. Carrying out a development without first obtaining the necessary
planning permission was not a criminal offence, but such action was
discouraged. However, and in accordance with national guidelines as contained
in the Development Control Manual it should be sought to correct the effects of
the unauthorised development and not to penalise the person(s) carrying out the
unauthorised development. It was considered that the proposal met the
requirements of the relevant policies and was acceptable for approval.
b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local
Member made the following points:
·
He was grateful to
Members for visiting the site.
·
That the development infringed the neighbours'
privacy.
·
The Member did not agree with the officers'
statement that there was only 'a little change' here; one side of the converted
house had been converted from stone to glass.
·
That light from inside
the house would disturb a dark night.
·
There were other huts
on site - was there an intention for these also to be converted into holiday
homes? Setting a dangerous precedent.
·
The track to the site
was in a poor condition - this would worsen with increased occupancy - need to
ensure that the track is maintained in a good condition.
·
That the site was unsuitable for holiday
accommodation.
c)
It was proposed and seconded to approve the
application.
ch) During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were
made by members:
·
That overlooking was a concern- it was possible
to see into the conservatory of nearby neighbours.
·
Although the holiday
accommodation had been converted to a high-quality, it looked out of place.
·
That the track to the site was narrow and in a
poor condition – unsuitable.
·
There were other buildings on site - concern that
this may set a precedent.
·
That the Community
Council had stated their opposition along with several objections from
neighbouring residents.
·
That the property was having a negative impact on
nearby residents - particularly its proximity to Coed
y Parc - this was a gross infringement on privacy.
·
That the window was too obvious - substantial
overlooking.
·
The property was in a quiet area - the hot tub
encouraged noise.
d) In response to a question
regarding the installation of a window pane with
opaque glass to reduce overlooking and the impact on neighbours' amenities, it
was noted that a condition could be imposed to secure this.
dd) The proposal was modified to
allow the application subject to the inclusion of a condition to install an
opaque glass pane in the window.
A
vote was taken on the proposal. The proposal fell.
e) It was proposed to refuse
the application on the grounds of overlooking, disturbance
and the impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties
The
amendment was not seconded.
f)
The Assistant Head of
Planning and Environment suggested that an option of deferring the decision
could be considered to hold further discussions with the applicant about the
level of activity within the site, set a definite boundary and consider further
modifications to mitigate the impact on neighbours.
ff)
It was proposed and seconded to defer the
decision to hold further discussions with the applicant.
RESOLVED: To defer
to conduct further discussions with the applicant
- need to discuss
the mitigation measures to reduce the development's impact on residential
amenities in terms of disturbance and privacy
Supporting documents:
PDF 167 KB