Agenda item

Retrospective application to convert an outbuilding to holiday let. 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elwyn Jones  

Link to relevant background documents

 

 

DECISION: To refuse

Reason: The application is contrary to Policy PCYFF 3: because the development would have a detrimental effect on residential amenities and the gable windows would over-look and cause an intrusive effect.

 

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a retrospective application to convert an outbuilding into a self-contained holiday accommodation - the original building was an outbuilding that was being used as an ancillary use to the Plas Coch property. ⁠ The decision on the application was adjourned at the January 2024 Committee to give the applicant the opportunity to respond to the observations regarding overlooking on nearby housing and to give him an opportunity to submit information about mitigation measures and a management plan for the holiday unit, which would alleviate neighbours’ concerns. Reference was made to the information submitted in the late observations form, as well as a photo showing that curtains had been put up very recently on the large window. A copy of rules for the holiday unit was received which asked guests not to use the hot tub after 9pm and to keep the noise to a minimum after 10pm. They do not permit parties including stag or hen parties, nor do they permit visitors who had not registered to stay in the accommodation. 

 

In the context of the principle of the development, it was noted that Policy TWR 2 was the relevant policy. In terms of the LDP, although the site was in open countryside, the Policy permitted a new self-contained holiday accommodation in the countryside on previously developed sites. It was explained, although the site was within a residential home curtilage, it complied with the definition of the LDP and Planning Policy Wales of previously developed land. It was reported that such applications should be supported by a structural report, but that work had already been completed, it was considered that it was not worth asking for a further report. It was highlighted that the observations received raised concerns about the quality of the work and the Building Control Unit was aware of the situation and could be implemented if required. Another key element of Policy TWR 2 was to assess the over-provision of self-contained holiday accommodation - in this case, there was no evidence of over-provision in this part of the County and the proposal did not mean a loss of permanent housing stock.

 

In terms of visual amenities, observations were received noting concerns that the Holiday Unit did not suit the landscape and that the original materials had been removed and replaced by more modern materials. In response, although the original materials had not been retained, it was considered that the materials used were acceptable and they did not have an impact on the character of the area significantly enough to cause a negative impact on the landscape.

 

Reference was made to concerns received which noted that the change in the building created a negative visual impact, although the plans did not show substantial change in shape or size of the original building with the height of the building sitting comfortably next to the Plas Coch house. It was accepted that there had been substantial change to the gable of the building with glass installed across the elevation. However, it was considered that the appearance did not directly face nearby houses and it was not overly noticeable from the road. It was reiterated that the design did not cause a negative impact on the residential amenities of nearby properties and that it would be possible to refurbish the building's external appearance without the need for planning permission.

 

It was noted that there were concerns regarding the location of the holiday unit on a narrow road that was used by local people and the use of a holiday unit would increase the busyness on the narrow road, disrupting the amenities of nearby residents. In response, it was acknowledged that movements of holiday units could be different to the normal residential house, but the development was a small scale that would unlikely lead to a detrimental impact on nearby residents' amenities or a substantial increase in traffic on the roads which serve the site. There had been consultations with the Unit regarding the matter and they had no objection.

 

It was explained, although several requests had been made to the applicant about evidence regarding the observation given about the language, no information was received that would support the application. As a result, a conclusion was made, as the proposal was otherwise acceptable and complied with the rest of the policies, especially in terms of over-provision, that there was no evidence to show that the proposal would have a negative impact on the language, and it was reiterated that it would be possible to ensure some mitigation measures through a condition. In addition, it was noted that the applicant had expressed in his business plan that he supported local businesses.

 

Having considered all the policies and the relevant planning guidance, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable, and it would be possible to manage the development through planning conditions. The Members were reminded that they could try to correct the impacts of the unauthorised development and not to punish the person(s) responsible for the development. Completing development work before receiving planning permission was not a valid reason to refuse the application. The Officers recommended to approve the application with conditions.

 

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

·        There was a lack of responding and communicating from the applicant

·        That attention had been given to the application because the development had been completed without permission

·        The proposal had an impact on nearby houses

·        A site visit had been arranged for the Members

·        The original building was not of the same height as the new building - disappointing that this could not be proven further

·        There was an element of over-looking on nearby properties

·        Lack of response to officers' requests for information

·        Should the application be a normal one, it would certainly be refused

·        Concern that the message here was to develop before obtaining permission

 

c)     It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application

Reason: The application was contrary to planning policy PCYFF 3 - impact on residential amenities

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

·     Putting curtains up to mitigate over-looking was insufficient

·     The window on the gable of the building was too big and likely to disrupt substantially on neighbours - creating an intrusive impact

·     The Community Council objected to the application

·     Many concerns had been presented by local residents - attention must be given to these concerns

·     There was a lack of respect towards the planning process - no attempt to work together

·     The road to the property was narrow and unsuitable - no need for more use

 

 

RESOLVED: TO REFUSE contrary to the recommendation.

Reason: The application was contrary to policy PCYFF 3 because the development would have a detrimental impact on residential amenities and the gable windows would cause over-looking and an intrusive impact.