Agenda item

Change of use from a nursing home (Use Class C2 - residential institutions) into a serviced hostel for holiday use (Unique Use) with ancillary warden's living accommodation (re-submission).

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elwyn Jones

Link to relevant background documents

 

DECISION: TO REFUSE, contrary to the recommendation

Reasons:

·         Concern regarding the nature, scale and density of the development and its effect having a negative impact on the residential amenities of local residents - contrary to policy PCYFF 2 and TWR 2

·         Over-use of the narrow road leading to the site

Change of use from a care home (C2 Use Class – residential establishments) to a serviced hostel for holiday use (Unique Use) with ancillary warden's living accommodation (resubmission).

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

 

a)     The Development Control Team Leader highlighted that the proposal related to changing the use of a former older people nursing home to a 25-room serviced holiday hostel use with living accommodation for a warden. It was noted that the site was located on the outskirts of the village of Penisarwaun, and the care home had been redundant since 2018. It was reported that the building would provide storage areas, drying rooms, games, washing/shower facilities, a kitchen and dining room and would also provide a small extension to form a lobby for the main entrance. No other external change was proposed.

 

It was highlighted that the application was a re-submission of a similar scheme that had been refused in 2023 due to a lack of information regarding bed capacity, which would raise concerns about harmful amenity impacts to local residents along with a lack of information about the warden accommodation and parking provision.

 

It was clarified that the application, in response to the above refusal reasons, confirmed that the maximum number of residents would be 60; the warden's accommodation was completely separate, and 42 parking spaces had been provided on the site which met the Welsh Government's parking standards requirements.

 

In considering the application, the importance of the site's planning history and the nature of its previous legal use as a care home was noted; and, the number of residents, the high level of staff necessary to provide the care along with additional attendees such as families and health services. It was considered that the development would not significantly increase the site's density of use compared with the former use, and that this could be ensured by imposing a condition to limit the facility to a maximum of 60 at a time. It was recognised that the nature of holiday accommodation use of this type could cause disruption that was significantly different to previous uses, however, it was highlighted that these impacts could be managed by imposing a planning condition to ensure that a management plan was in place that would commit the managers to adopt appropriate measures to control noise, transport and residents' behaviour and to deal with complaints.

 

In addition, it was noted that the proposal would provide serviced accommodation for visitors, which was different to self-service accommodation, and there was no excess of this type of accommodation in the local area.

 

Having considered all the relevant planning issues, the principle of the development, visual, general and residential amenities, transport and access matters, sustainability, infrastructure, biodiversity and the Welsh Language, the proposal was considered acceptable.

 

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

·        The application was identical to the refused application.

·        The increase in use was significant – it would affect the local image – the use was doubled [EMW(1] – how then was the scale the same?

·        This would be the largest hostel in the area.

·        It would increase the population of the village by 10%.

·        Who in the village would benefit?

·        It did not comply with Policy TWR2.

·        Not enough parking spaces had been provided.

·        A significant increase in noise pollution – creating disruption and a negative impact on the local residents' standard of living.

·        The site would be suitable for housing – affordable housing for a Welsh-speaking community.

·        The proposal was an over-development – why did we need such a large hostel in such a small village?

 

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

·        The site's former use was as an older people's home which had been disused since 2019.

·        The site had been bought by a young man from the village.

·        The original application had been refused on the grounds of lack of clarity and the impact on residential amenities.

·        This was a re-submission of the application which provided information that was missing from the original application. The officers were satisfied with what had been provided and recommended approving the application with conditions.

·        The report confirmed the number of beds – 25 bedrooms with 60 beds, with space for a warden and 3 to 4 full-time staff. The hostel's capacity would be 62, but it was unlikely that it would be full all year due to the seasonal nature of the business. As a care home there would have been 30 residents and 26 staff.

·        An extension for the home had been granted permission which would have provided an additional 40 bedrooms with 56 staff – this would have been much more than what was being presented here.

·        A potential impact assessment had been provided which concluded that there were no unacceptable effects.

·        The applicant was prepared to submit a management plan through a condition which would set out measures to control resident noise and behaviour along with clear processes for dealing with complaints.

·        There was sufficient parking provision – the Highways Unit had not refused the application.

 

ch) Although he was not present, the Local Member had submitted the following comments for the officer to read out:

·        The application had been presented to the Committee before. At the time I was neither in favour or against it, because at the time I considered that the benefits of developing a disused building back into use and creating some local work balanced out the disadvantages that would come with increased traffic in the area which would lead to parking problems as well as increased noise.

·        That application was refused in part due to insufficient detail.

·        Naturally, he had discussed the case and the reasons for refusal and had thought about how it would be possible to develop something that could benefit the wider community e.g. a type of shop that would obviously reduce the number of places to stay.

·        While more detail had been presented this time, it was essentially the same application.

·        Although the speed limit of the road past the site had now been reduced from 60 mph to 30 mph, its width remained the same; it was a narrow road with few passing places, some wider than others, along it.

·        Many, many residents of Penisarwaun had since been in touch expressing their concerns. Residents who did not live nearby as well as the nearest residents were concerned about the increase in traffic.

·        It was obvious from the parking provision that visitors would be arriving with cars/vans or perhaps larger vehicles – they would be using these vehicles to go back and forth to do their shopping as there was no shop nearby.

·        There were no entertainment facilities of any kind here either, and it was scarcely believed that each one of the visitors craved the tranquillity of Penisarwaun while here on holiday. It would therefore be necessary to travel to different places to enjoy our area because on top of the lack of resources there was also a lack of public transport services.

·        Given therefore the lack of existing resources and services available in the community, it had to be considered that the development as it stood was an over-development in the countryside.

·        Therefore, as much as one is keen to see the site being developed, I consider that the disadvantages brought about by this development outweigh the advantages, and as such I cannot support it.

 

d)     It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application because it was an over-development – no services available, no pavement, the site was inappropriate and unsuitable for its circumstances. Concern about the scale, and the impact on the residential amenities of local residents.

 

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

·        It would be better to see affordable housing on the site.

·        The Community Council and the Local Member had presented valid reasons for refusing.

·        The village was not supportive of the application, therefore we must listen to the voice of the people.

·        The agent was misleading in comparing the previous use with the proposed use – this used to be a small residential home with staff living locally – nothing like what was being discussed.

·        There was no shop or services in Penisarwaun – this would lead to overuse of the road as people went in search of services.

·        The hostel might attract people who were not considerate of local people's amenities.

·        Increased traffic would bring additional hazards.

·        Impact on local people's quality of life – this was sufficient grounds to object.

·        The hostel was too large.

·        The proposal was contrary to Policy TWR 2 in terms of scale and density and the impact on local residents.

 

·        There had been a lot of coming and going in the residential home.

·        Permission had been received to expand the site.

·        This was a local man who had bought the site – he needed encouragement to succeed.

·        Better to see a hostel than an eyesore.

 

In response to a question about how confident were the officers that sufficient parking had been provided, the Assistant Head stated that one of the shortcomings of the original application was inadequate information regarding the parking provision. Consequently, additional information had been submitted and the Transport Unit had no objection to the provision being proposed which was also in line with the requirements of the Welsh Government's parking standards. He reiterated that there was no evidence that transport was grounds to refuse the application.

 

RESOLVED: TO REFUSE the application, contrary to the recommendation

Reasons:

·        Concern about the nature, scale and density of the development having a negative impact on the residential amenities of local residents - contrary to policies PCYFF 2 and TWR 2.

·        Overuse of the narrow road leading to the site.