Agenda item

The change of use of Ground floor from Public House to Holiday Lets

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dafydd Meurig

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

 

DECISION: To refuse

The Local Planning Authority is not persuaded that the evidence submitted with the application is sufficient to demonstrate that it is not possible to continue with a community use of this building. The application is therefore contrary to Policy ISA 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 as it relates to the protection of community facilities.

 

Change of use of ground floor from Public House to Holiday Lets

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that this was an application for the conversion of the ground floor of an empty public house into two self-contained holiday units. The application was submitted to the committee for decision at the Local Member's request and also because of the public interest in the application. It was explained that this was the third submission of a similar scheme, and the other applications were refused due to the lack of information to justify the loss of a community resource. It was highlighted that the main difference with this application was that a Viability Report had been included with the application.

 

When considering the principle of the development, attention was drawn to Policy ISA 2 and the relevant criteria. It was highlighted in the report that there was no similar facility within convenient distance of the village without the use of a motor vehicle to reach it.

 

It was noted that the Viability Report discussed proposals from a community group to maintain a business in the pub, which concluded that such an enterprise would not be viable in this case. However, it did not appear that those conclusions were based on any detailed analysis of a particular business proposal and the community group remained of the opinion that their proposals to run a business from the site were viable and practical. It was reiterated that the Viability Report specifically relied on the views of the expert and that there was no robust financial evidence in the appropriate form submitted to support the application.

 

It seemed that the policy also asked for evidence of genuine attempts to market the facility. Reference was made to an e-mail which was submitted stating an effort to market the property for over 12 months, but no detailed evidence had been submitted to support this statement. In addition, it seemed that this was an effort to market the property for rent rather than an effort to sell the property as a whole as a business. A copy of a marketing advertisement was received, but there was no information to show when the property was advertised, the length of the advertising period and the response to that advertisement - there was no longer an advertisement for the property on the company's website. When assessing the information submitted with the application, it was not considered that sufficient evidence had been submitted regarding the financial situation of the business or to show that the pub had been advertised appropriately for a continuous period of at least 12 months in accordance with the requirements of the SPG and policy ISA 2.

 

In the context of providing self-service holiday accommodation, it was explained that there was no evidence of excess in the area and, therefore, the proposal met the relevant criteria within policy TWR 2. However, it was highlighted that policy TWR 2 aimed to protect the residential character of an area and considering that this development would lead to the loss of an important community resource, and replacing it with the creation of an entirely different private facility in nature, it would be inevitable that there would be damage to the residential character of the area from this development.

 

It was reported that the business plan submitted with the application referred to a business which included three holiday units, with the first floor of the building being converted into a holiday let unit for up to 12 people. It was noted that this was not part of the application in question and, therefore, it was not possible to consider that document as part of the application as it was a different development from the one in question. If there was an intention to use the upper floor as a permanent residential accommodation in its own right, then planning permission would be required.

 

Although the agent had confirmed that there was an intention to amend the application in May this year, no further information was subsequently received. As a result, it was highlighted that the application had been assessed based on the information submitted and, therefore, the Officers recommended that the Committee refused the application as they were not convinced that the evidence submitted was sufficient to confirm that it was not possible to continue with the community use of the building.

 

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

·       That, in the past, the pub was amongst the best in the area

·       The pub's doors had closed in 2019 - the community had not had an opportunity to 'save the pub'

·       Following the covid period and rules relaxing, a community facility was lost

·       That the Parchu Pentir Committee held many activities – a busy committee

·       The Church was currently the only public building in the village

·       That Pentir was a central site, a good site as a hub for the wider community

·       That closing the doors of the pub had been a knock to the community - an Airbnb would be a fatal blow

·       That the community was thriving - the community could make the pub work

·       That sustaining communities was important

 

c)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following comments:

·       That there were strong feelings locally about changing the use of the pub

·       That no update of the proposal had been received since May

·       No sufficient consideration had been given to the loss of community facility

·       That the Viability Report highlighted the opinion of one person from Wakefield

·       No details had been submitted regarding why the pub was not viable - no financial details had been submitted or examples of pubs ran by communities

·       No consideration to the future of buildings run by the Community - good examples in Gwynedd of successes

·       No evidence had been submitted which clearly showed how and when the facility was marketed nor the response to those efforts

·       Asked the Committee to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation

 

ch) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation. Need to see the pub reopening its doors.

 

         RESOLVED to Refuse

 

         Reason: The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the evidence submitted with the application is sufficient to demonstrate that it is not possible to continue with a community use of this building. The application is therefore contrary to Policy ISA 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 as it relates to the protection of community facilities.