Agenda item

Application to vary condition no. 2 and 3 on planning consent ref: 20/08600/FUL to enable the outbuilding currently permitted for an annexe use, to also be used for holiday let purposes.

Public Participation

·       Mr Howard Waters - spoke in support of the application

·       Cllr Jackie Waddel (Urchfont Parish Council) – spoke in opposition to the application

The Conservation and Planning Officer, Joe Leesam, introduced a report which recommended that the application to vary conditions 2 and 3 on planning consent ref: 20/08600/FUL to enable the outbuilding, currently permitted for an annexe use, to also be used for holiday let purposes, be approved. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, the overdevelopment of the site, as well as the design and visual impacts.

Attention was drawn to proposed changes to the wording to condition 3 of the report. It was explained that the changes added greater clarity about the proposed usage of the site for holiday accommodation and placed a 28-day limit on the continuous use by a single person or group. In addition, the officer suggested that an informative be added to advise the applicant that dropping the kerb of the pavement in front of the dwelling would require the appropriate licence, even if permission for the development was granted.

The officer emphasised that there would not be any significant adverse visual impacts from the proposed development, as it was for the conversion of an existing annexe. Similarly, there would not be any significant negative highway impacts. Sufficient parking would be provided, with three spaces for the main dwelling and a separate parking space for the holiday annexe.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers. Details were sought about restricting the maximum stay and no-return period for holiday makers to 28 days. It was explained that this was a common requirement to ensure that holiday accommodation was used for the intended purpose. However, it would be possible for the Committee to amend the no return period if they felt that it was appropriate to do so. 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above. 

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Philip Whitehead then spoke in opposition to the application.

In response to the points raised by the public and Unitary Division Member, it was explained by officers that it was their view that there would not be any negative impacts upon the conservation area in which the development was located, as there would not be any physical changes to the appearance of the outbuilding. They also did not feel that granting permission would set a precedent for the erection of holiday accommodation in the gardens of neighbouring properties, as the proposed development was in an existing outbuilding.

It was highlighted that some of the other outbuildings on the site did not have planning permission and that their removal was a matter for the enforcement team.

In order to begin the debate, it was proposed by the Vice-Chairman, seconded by Cllr Stuart Wheeler, that the application be granted.

A debate followed where the demand for holiday accommodation was discussed. It was also queried whether using the outbuilding as holiday accommodation would mean that it could still be regarded as an ancillary usage to the main dwelling. Furthermore, concerns were raised about the proposed development encouraging similar applications and whether it could open up the possibility of the title being split in future. 

Following debate, a vote on the motion to approve the application was lost.

Cllr Iain Wallis, seconded by Cllr Dominic Muns, then moved a motion to refuse the application on the grounds that the proposed location was unsuitable for anything other than ancillary use. 

At the conclusion of the discussion on the proposal, it was then:

Resolved

That the application to vary conditions 2 and 3 on planning consent ref: 20/08600/FUL to enable the outbuilding, currently permitted for an annexe use, to also be used for holiday let purposes, be REFUSED.

Reason

The introduction of a holiday let use into the existing ancillary residential annexe would lead to additional activity and related disturbance which would be detrimental to the amenities of the surrounding close-knit residential area.  This is contrary to Core Policy 57(vii) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.