Agenda item

Proposed change of use from chalet / bedrooms to 10no. Affordable residential units (mixture of 1 and 2 bed self contained bedsits) 

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Llio Elenid Owen 

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: TO REFUSE

 

1.     The application was considered to be contrary to policy TAI 7 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Replacement Dwellings and Conversions in the Countryside' as the building is not traditional.  As there are no other policies within the LDP which permit new residential dwellings in open countryside, it is considered that the proposal is also contrary to policy PCYFF 1.

 

2.     No evidence had been received of affordable local need, or information indicating that there is an appropriate mix of housing for the number and type of units proposed. As a result, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to policy TAI 7 and TAI 8.

 

3.     No sufficient evidence was received to show that the commercial use of the building is not viable or evidence to justify the loss of serviced holiday accommodation, which is contrary to PS 14, and criterion 1 of policy TAI 7.

 

4.     That the units, due to their limited size, are contrary to paragraph 4.2.30 of edition 12 of Planning Policy Wales as the units do not meet the Welsh Government's development quality standards. It is also contrary to policy TAI 8 as the proposal does not reflect a high-quality design standard that creates sustainable and inclusive communities and the units will not help create healthy and vibrant environments, and do not take into account the health and well-being of future occupiers in line with policy PCYFF 3.

 

Change of use of chalet / bedrooms to proposed 10 affordable residential units (mix of 1 and 2 bedrooms, self-contained units) 

 

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application to change the use of bedrooms to 10 affordable residential units.

 

In terms of the principle of the development, it was explained that policy PCYFF 1 was relevant as the site was located outside of any development boundary as defined within the LDP and the site was in open countryside. It was highlighted that the policy stated that proposals were refused unless they were in accordance with other policies within the plan or national planning policies or the proposal showed that its location in the countryside was essential.

 

It was reiterated that consideration to Policy TAI 7 was also important, as the proposal involved converting buildings in the countryside into living units. However, the policy only allowed the conversion of traditional buildings. Reference was made to Section 7 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 'Replacement Dwellings and Conversions in the Countryside', which defined traditional buildings as those built prior to 1919 and of 'breathable construction'. It was noted from the site's planning history that permission was given to erect the building in 1978 and therefore it will not be possible to consider the proposal against Policy TAI 7 as it would not be a conversion of a traditional building. It was noted that the guidance also noted that traditional buildings had an aesthetic value which derived from the way that people had sensible and intellectual enjoyment of the building with the character of the building often encompassing local unique features and contributed to the sense of place. In this context, it was explained that the construction was mainly made of red brick construction and modern windows that did not have a high amenity value and did not reflect the character and nature of traditional buildings in the area. Given this, the application did not meet the requirements of policy TAI 7 as the proposal did not involve a conversion of a traditional building, and as there was no other policy within the LDP that allowed provision of affordable housing in open countryside; the principle of the proposal was therefore contrary to policy PCYFF 1.

 

It was also explained that the application did not meet other criteria within policy TAI 7 as a structural report was not received to support the application. In addition, no evidence was received to prove the need for the affordable units and how the development had been designed to ensure an appropriate mix of housing in accordance with policy TAI 8. It was highlighted that Planning Policy Wales (PPW) required new affordable housing to reach the Welsh Government's development quality standards, and because these units, based on their size, did not meet these requirements, it was considered that the proposal was contrary to PPW. It was also considered, due to the restricted size of the units, that the proposal was contrary to policy TAI 8 as the proposal did not reflect a high-quality design standard which created sustainable and inclusive communities - these units did not support the creation of healthy and lively environments, and they did not consider the health and well-being of future users in accordance with policy PCYFF 3.

 

Criterion 1 of policy TAI 7 was considered, which required evidence that employment use of the building was not viable, as well as policy PS14 (The Visitor Economy) - the legal use of the building as bedrooms for a hotel. ⁠It was explained that this policy was relevant in the context of support to the protection of holiday accommodation and facilities. It was noted that the only information received from the application was that the building had been marketed over a period of 18 months since 2022 before the applicant made an offer to buy the building.

 

It was acknowledged that the building had been marketed, but in accordance with the SPG requirements, it was necessary to receive financial evidence that the business was not viable and that it was not expected for it to become economically viable in the future. It was also acknowledged that the planning statement offered more evidence from the company responsible for marketing the building, but this was not requested as the application did not meet the principles of policy TAI 7, and receiving the information would not overcome the conflict with the policy. Therefore, it was considered that the proposal was contrary to policy PS 14 and criterion 1 of Policy TAI 7.

 

It was accepted that the application complied with some policies in terms of visual impact and general amenity impact, transportation, biodiversity and impact on the language, but it was not considered that this overcame the conflict with the basic policy. The Officers recommended to approve the application with conditions. 

 

b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following points:

·        The Stables had ceased trading in 2019

·        It was put on the market in 2022 without any success

·        The application had been submitted in October 2024 - there had been no communication with the Planning Service until they became aware that the application was to be discussed at the Committee

·        There was a request to defer the decision to prepare responses to the objections

·        There was a housing crisis in the County - a need for affordable housing

·        Disagreed with the officers' views regarding the proposal meeting the need and the view that the building was not considered as a traditional building

·        The proposal would provide affordable housing

 

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

·        The application was unsuitable - it would have a negative impact on the village

·        Contrary to local requirements

·        Many local residents had highlighted their dissatisfaction with the planning application

·        No public transport - no suitable access - no resources within walking distance

·        The plan was of an urban nature - an overdevelopment

·        It did not respond to the demand for this type of housing provision needed in the area

·        The size of the units was very small

·        It was not within the LDP - it was contrary to local and national policies - contrary to Policy TAI 1 - the building was not of traditional design and contrary to Policy TAI 8 - no evidence of the demand locally

·        There was no standard to the design

·        No evidence of commercial / self-contained use or evidence supporting the creation of a healthy community submitted

·        There had been no correspondence with the Community - the applicant had not considered the views of local residents

 

   ch) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application

 

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

·        The units were sub-standard - this was not a good precedent for Gwynedd

·        There was a need to keep standards high and ensure suitable housing for the people of Gwynedd

·        The local objection was very substantial

 

In response to a question regarding the request for pre-application advice, it was noted that a request had been made but that was for a development that was slightly different to the one submitted to the Committee.

 

            RESOLVED: TO REFUSE

 

1.     The application was considered to be contrary to policy TAI 7 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Replacement Dwellings and Conversions in the Countryside' as the building was not traditional. As there were no other policies within the LDP which permitted new residential dwellings in open countryside, it was considered that the proposal was also contrary to policy PCYFF 1.

 

2.     No evidence had been received of affordable local need, or information indicating that there was an appropriate mix of housing for the number and type of units proposed. As a result, it was considered that the proposal was contrary to policy TAI 7 and TAI 8.

 

3.     Insufficient evidence received to demonstrate that the commercial use of the building was not viable or evidence to justify the loss of serviced holiday accommodation, which was contrary to PS 14, and criterion 1 of policy TAI 7.

 

4.     That the units, due to their limited size, were contrary to paragraph 4.2.30 of edition 12 of Planning Policy Wales as the units did not meet the Welsh Government's development quality standards. It was also contrary to policy TAI 8 as the proposal did not reflect the high-quality design standard that created sustainable and inclusive communities and the units would not help to create healthy and lively environments and did not consider the health and well-being of future users in line with policy PCYFF 3.