skip to main content

Agenda item

Change of use from annexe to holiday accommodation

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Eirwyn Williams

 

Link to relevant background documents

Minutes:

         Change of use from annexe to holiday accommodation

 

         The Members had visited the site.

 

(a)       The Development Control Officer elaborated on the background to the application, and noted that the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held in December 2018, in order to undertake a site visit. It was highlighted that the site was located within a residential housing estate in Cricieth. It was noted that the site consisted of a two-storey residential property with an external single-storey pitch-roofed building within the curtilage that was currently used as a games room.

 

It was reiterated that an amended floor plan, a Design and Access statement and Business Plan had been submitted (27.11.2018) as part of the application which reduced the number of bedrooms from two to one and removed a window that overlooked the curtilage of the residential property.

 

It was explained that pre-application advice had been provided where it had been highlighted in the response that the proposal was contrary to policies TWR 2 and PCYFF 2 as the proposed unit was located within a mainly residential area. It was considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents. It was highlighted that policy TWR 2 permitted the conversion of outbuildings to holiday accommodation provided that the development was of a high quality in terms of design, setting and appearance, and met five criteria. Since the site was located within the curtilage of a residential dwelling on a housing estate, it was considered that the proposal did not comply with point iv of Policy TWR2 - The development is not located in a mainly residential area, and doesd not cause significant harm to the residential character of the area. Due to the proximity of the proposal to the residential dwelling, it was reiterated that it could not be considered to be of high quality in terms of location. It was also considered that using this building as a separate unit would mean that the scale of the development was unacceptable and that each property would detrimentally impact the other. Therefore, the proposal did not comply with point ii of Policy TWR2 - That the scale of the proposed development is appropriate considering the site, location and/or dwelling in question.

 

It was considered that the proposal was also contrary to PCYFF 2 with regards to securing and protecting the amenities of current and future occupiers from activities that could cause disturbance to the estate from noise and movements related to the nature of holiday use.

         

(b)     It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.

 

(c)     In response to a question regarding whether it would be possible to hold further discussions with the applicant to consider possibilities and amend the plan, it was noted that it would be difficult to meet criteria TWR2 with the proposal in question. It was reiterated that pre-application advice had been provided to the applicant where it had been highlighted that the proposal was contrary to policies.

 

(ch)   In response to a Member’s observation that an annexe for parents would be acceptable but that a holiday unit would be unacceptable, it was noted that the main principle in question here was the type of use being considered and the need to protect residential locations. It was reiterated that the Planning Service was unable to manage open market housing, but with this type of proposal it would be possible to manage through legislation. Approving the proposal could set a precedent for similar developments to create self-contained accommodation units in a residential area.

 

(d)     In response to a suggestion to include a 106 agreement on the holiday unit so that both units could not be sold separately, the Senior Solicitor noted that including a 106 agreement was likely to be challenged for revocation within five years.

 

(dd)   In response to an observation regarding the need for clarity for the number of tourist accommodation in Cricieth (70 units and five self-contained units) compared to a total of 41 (in a statement on the number of non-domestic rates), it was noted that the Planning Service had consulted with the Tourism Unit and that it had no reason to disagree with their observations.

 

(e)     During the ensuing discussion, the following points were made by members:

·         Competing was not a reason for refusing.

·         The building was the size of a double garage and, therefore, if approved it could set a dangerous precedent for others.

 

RESOLVED to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation.

 

The proposal to convert the existing building within the curtilage into a self-contained holiday accommodation is unacceptable because of the site's location within a residential housing estate, and as the Local Planning Authority has not been satisfied that there is not an excess of this type of accommodation in the area, which is contrary to criterion iv and v of policy TWR 2 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2016. Because of the building's location and its proximity to the existing residential dwelling on the site, the proposal cannot be considered to be of high quality in terms of its location. It is also considered that using this building within the curtilage as a separate unit would mean that the scale of the development is unacceptable and that both properties would detrimentally impact the amenities of the other, which is contrary to criterion ii of policy TWR 2 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026.

 

The proposal is contrary to the requirements of policy PCYFF 2 of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 in terms of securing the amenities of current and future occupiers in relation to safeguarding the amenities of local property occupiers from activities that could cause disturbance to the estate from noise and movements.

Supporting documents: