Change of use of former public house into holiday
accomodation.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elfed W. Williams
Minutes:
Change of use of former public house into holiday
accommodation.
(a) The Planning Manager
elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the application had been deferred at the Committee held on 5 November
2018 for officers to consult on the business plan and consider this as part of the assessment.
It was explained that the application was to convert the derelict The Bull Inn public
house in Deiniolen into self-serviced holiday accommodation with eight bedrooms.
The development involved a considerable change to the internal layout of the building but there
would not be a significant change to the external appearance.
It was noted that
the public house had been closed since
2016 and had been for sale for
over a year (between July 2016 and October 2017) and advertised at a low price (£75,000). Should the public house business be viable, it was considered that it would be reasonable to expect that new managers
for the business would have come
forward during that period. It had to be borne in mind
that another public house, namely
"The Wellington", was within 20m of this building.
It was highlighted that Policy TWR 2 of the JLDP supports the development of permanent holiday accommodation by converting existing buildings provided that proposals
are of high quality. It was noted that there was justification to call the development
one of high quality.
It was noted that
it was believed that the potential to cause detriment to amenities such as noise and
disturbance was more likely
from the authorised use, such as a public house, than there would be from self-serviced holiday accommodation as proposed here.
Attention was drawn to the fact that the Transportation
Unit had no objection to
the proposal. In considering the authorised use of the building as a public house, it was not deemed that this
development would be likely to cause substantially worse difficulties than the authorised situation. It was noted that the Transportation Unit stated that public
parking was available in car parks and
on the street within a reasonable distance to the facility.
Reference was made
to the business plan submitted
by the applicant that explained that the intention was to convert the public house into
high quality accommodation for up to 20 guests and stated that
there were no similar facilities
for large groups, and of this quality, available
locally. Attention was
drawn to the additional observations
received from the Tourism, Marketing and Customer Care Service together with the Council's Rates Unit.
The development was acceptable in terms
of relevant local and national policies
for the reasons noted in the report.
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s representative noted the
following main points:-
·
It was proposed
to provide high quality accommodation for groups at a competitive price;
·
The proposal
complied with the policies in the JLDP;
·
The change
of use into holiday accommodation on the second floor
had already been approved;
·
The building
had been advertised for sale for
a period of 12 months for a price of £75,000, if use as a public
house was viable then it would have
been bought and re-opened;
·
That such
developments in other places were
successful and contributed to the local economy;
·
There were
only three buildings within 20 miles to the site that had provision of the same standard and
size;
·
That the Tourism
Unit identified the need for quality accommodation
for groups;
·
There was parking
provision at the rear of
the building and the Transportation Unit had no objection to the proposal;
·
The proposal
would bring benefits to the local economy;
·
The development
would bring a building back into
use before its condition deteriorated
further.
(c) The local member
(not a member of this Planning Committee) noted the following main points:-
·
The application
before them was an improvement on the application refused, however, the size of the rooms remained small. Would it be possible to confirm the size of the rooms?
·
One bedroom had doors opening out
towards the back of the site and looked
out onto a wall, this was not quality accommodation;
·
The proposal
was contrary to Policy TWR
2 of the JLDP as it was not high quality
accommodation;
·
Concern that
problems would arise similar to Noddfa Hostel;
·
Concern regarding
the parking provision, lack of parking spaces on the street;
·
There were
strong local feelings and many
letters of objection had been submitted;
·
An objector's letter noted that
the development of the building
was welcomed, however, it
was necessary to consider
the application in the context of other similar applications submitted. There had been an increase
in the number of similar applications that led to the Anglicisation of
the area.
(ch) In response to the local member’s observations, the Planning Manager noted:
·
That the size of the rooms varied to respond to the requirements of individuals and families, it was considered that their size were
acceptable.
·
The doors looking out
towards a wall was a matter
of opinion;
·
The parking provision was acceptable with some parking space
at the back of the building
and two public
car parks nearby. Given the existing use, more parking provision may be needed in association
with this use compared to the proposed use;
·
That the current figures indicated a low percentage of this type of provision in the ward;
·
That other planning applications were considered on their
own merits;
·
That the proposed provision was of high quality and
was in accordance with policy requirements.
(d) It was proposed and
seconded to refuse the application contrary to the officers’ recommendation.
During the ensuing
discussion, the following
main observations were noted by members:
·
That it was a local
public house that was in question
and it was local people who used
the establishment and therefore it could not be stated that there
was a need for more parking provision with the current use;
·
The accommodation
provision would be for up to 20 guests
that could lead to 20 cars, the parking provision was not sufficient for this number of cars;
·
There were
parking problems in Deiniolen due to the high density of housing;
·
Concern regarding
the impact of the proposal on residential amenities in terms
of noise. There was some control of use of a public house with opening
hours;
·
Uncertainty if
it was quality accommodation;
·
That the public
house had a Welsh feel and there was a danger to the area's culture and language;
·
There was potential
for the proposal and in terms
of the Anglicisation of the area,
the provision was for holiday use;
·
Consideration should
be given to conduct a site inspection visit to assess the proximity of the building to other buildings and the parking provision;
·
The fact
that up to 20 guests could stay
in the building in eight bedrooms
raised questions about the business plan;
·
It was a shame
to lose a public house but there
was no wish for the building's condition to get any worse.
(dd) An amendment was proposed to conduct a site inspection visit. The amendment was seconded.
RESOLVED to conduct a site inspection visit.
Supporting documents: