Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions to be determined by the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 16 June 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.  

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and in referring Members to the late observations, said that the second reason for refusal relating to the design of the proposal was being withdrawn.  He explained that Cadole was a Category C settlement and the growth rate permitted in Policy HSG3 for such a settlement was 10% unless a local need requirement was met.  This application would take the figure to 11.4% and as a local need had not been identified, the proposal did not comply with the Policy.

                        Mr. D. Fitzsimon, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that there was no dispute that the proposal exceeded the growth rate for the settlement, but the circumstances in this case were exceptional.  Planning permission for two holiday lets had been permitted in 2003 on the basis that the shop was not profitable.  It had been advertised extensively and quotes of over £120,000 to convert the shop and store to two holiday lets was not a viable option as the occupancy was expected to be very low based on another holiday property in the area.  If two dwellings were permitted, this could generate £475 per calendar month per property in rent and was therefore the preferred option.  If the shop closed and permission was not granted to convert to two dwellings, then it would be empty and could be subject to vandalism and dilapidation which could have an impact on the village and the nearby Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Mr. Fitzsimon said that the shop and store had been two dwellings in the past and indicated to Members that a flat could be created about the shop without the need for planning permission.  He said that approval of the application would not set a precedent and would not undermine Policy HSG3. 

Councillor Neville Phillips proposed approval of the application against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  Councillor Phillips read out a statement from the Local Member, Councillor Nancy Matthews, which indicated that the applicant had been granted permission to convert to two holiday lets in 2013 and reiterated the comments of Mr. Fitzsimon that the conversion was not viable due to costs.  The application would return the store and shop to two cottages which was the original purpose of the buildings as reflected in the conversion of the other two properties in the row.  Councillor Matthews had asked that the application be approved as the proposal would improve the Conservation Area of Cadole. 

                        Councillor Owen Thomas felt that the conversion to two dwellings would not add to the 11.1% growth in the village as the buildings were already there.  He added that the conversion would create affordable accommodation for young people. 

                        In welcoming the proposal, Councillor David Cox felt that the properties would prove to be an asset to the community of Cadole.  Councillor Butler said that the other two properties had been converted and questioned what difference converting the shop and store would make but commented on the loss of the gardens and queried where the recycling would take place.  Councillor Marion Bateman felt that paragraph 7.03 about the achievement of affordable dwellings was self explanatory due to the proposed size of the properties.  Councillor Gareth Roberts said that his initial reaction was to refuse the application as the proposal exceeded 10%, however he felt that the building would be worthy of retention as it was in the Conservation Area and there could therefore be justification to permit the application.  Councillor Richard Jones said that the growth rate of 10% was a guide and that there were many areas, which he detailed, where the rate had been exceeded.  He suggested that as it was only two properties, approval of the application was sustainable. 

                        In response to the comments made, the Planning Strategy Manager said that when allocating housing, the 10% limit in policy was absolute.  He asked Members to bear in mind the precedent that permitting two extra houses in a Category C settlement area that already exceeded its growth rate would be setting.  He said that there was no evidence to suggest that the development would meet a local housing need and it was not possible to enforce affordability on the properties.  He reiterated that the applicant had planning permission for two holiday lets and queried whether the applicant had tried to market the properties as holiday lets or sell the shop and store and asked if the suggestion to create a ‘live/work’ unit with a flat above the shop had been explored.  It had also been suggested that the property would fall into a state of dilapidation but the Planning Strategy Manager stated that it was unlikely that this asset would be allowed to deteriorate  He said that if Members were minded to make an exception to the Policy, then this could set a precedent for the future.        

                        In summing up, Councillor Phillips said that the figures about low occupancy rate for holiday lets in the area had been provided by the Tourist Board and other landlords. 

                        On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application, against officer recommendation, was CARRIED.    

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions to be determined by the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).