Change of use from holiday let to full residential use. Report by Senior Planning Officer (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Senior Planning Officer (JJ) (circulated previously) regarding planning application 79478.

Mrs Catherine May (applicant) addressed the Committee.

Councillor Coombs, as Ward Member, addressed the Committee in support of the application).

Councillor Biederman, Devon County Councillor, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Senior Planning Officer (JJ) advised the following:

·       Clarified the reasons for refusal as detailed on pages 120 and 121 of the report.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:

·       Whilst understanding that there were personal circumstances, Planning Law required planning applications to be determined in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and the development plan.  There had been similar previous planning applications where there had been personal circumstances which had been consistently refused. The Planning Inspector would consider whether the applicant had looked at the way that they operated their holiday lets, had the applicant looked at the possibility of using a letting agent and whether all options had been explored. There was nothing to trigger local needs occupancy in respect to planning policy.

Councillor Prowse left the meeting.

In response to further questions from the Committee, the Service Manager (Development Management) advised the following:

·       If it was a redundant building, then Policy DM27 would apply.  However, this building was not a redundant building.

·       There was a requirement for the properties to be marketed to ascertain whether there was a requirement for tourism use.  There was a need to also ascertain how it was being actively marketed as holiday use lets.  The Committee should not be considering personal circumstances. It was considered to be a good location for tourism as it was a short drive to various tourist destinations.

·       Part 3 of Policy DM18 would be reviewed as part of the review of the Local Plan.

In response to further questions from the Committee, the Senior Planning Officer (JJ) advised the following:

·       Booking records had been provided for both Tawny Owl Cottage and Barn Owl Cottage.  There had been bookings for Tawny Owl Cottage throughout the year and there had been less for Barn Owl Cottage. The reasons for this had not been provided.

·       Paragraph 13.109 of the supporting text to Policy DM18 stated “Marketing will be considered to be appropriate when the property has been presented to the market at a reasonable price, with appropriate conditions identified and for a period of at least 12 months prior to the application's submission”. This would enable the market to be tested to ascertain whether there was still a demand for tourism use, other operators may express an interest and may be able to improve occupancy or the owner may sell. It would be required to be marketed at a “marketable price” as a going concern ``with one or more agents for a 12 month period. This marketing had not occurred.  Compelling evidence had not been provided.  The figures for 2024 still showed a level of occupancy for tourism.  The Local Planning Authority would require this evidence which would include the number of inquiries and the reasons as to why it had not resulted in a sale.  It would also determine if there was a genuine interest from other operators.  Quite often a sale would not proceed due to a property having a holiday occupancy or it might result in someone being interested in running it as a tourism accommodation business.

·       The applicant had not provided evidence of other options that had been explored such as an agent managing the bookings. 

·       The bookings records did not include details of how many days were for holiday use or owner use. No information had been provided in relation to financial viability of the business.

·       Evidence of marketing would also include how the properties had been marketed for holiday accommodation lets.

·       A review of booking websites had been carried out and the properties were available for booking at the time that the application was submitted.  They were of a good standard and had received good ratings from guests that had stayed there.  The holiday lets were well located for other tourism destinations.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Solicitor and Data Protection Officer advised the following:

·       Referred to the reasons for refusal as detailed in the report. In relation to reason 1, there were two elements, whether the holiday lets had been marketed and booked and also whether it had been tested to ascertain if there was wider tourism in the area by marketing the properties for 12 months.  There needed to be an evidential basis within reasons and Officers had advised that this marketing had not been undertaken. Reference was made to the paragraph on page 116 which stated “Without the marketing exercise being undertaken, it is not possible to determine that the properties are no longer required as tourism accommodation, and the booking records indicate that Tawny Owl Cottage is making a positive contribution to the rural economy, with a significant level of occupancy throughout 2024.”

Following the moving and seconding of a motion to approve the application, the Chair outlined the steps to be followed in accordance with the Planning Code of Conduct, Paragraph 9, Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution as follows: “9.4 Where a councillor wishes to move or moves a motion which differs from the officer’s recommendation consideration should be given to adjourning the committee meeting for a few minutes for the reasons for such a motion to be discussed.”

RESOLVED, following the moving and seconding of a motion to approve the application, which differed from the Planning Officer’s recommendation, that in accordance with paragraph 9.4 of the Planning Code of Conduct the meeting be adjourned at 12.45 p.m., for the reasons for such a motion to be discussed with the mover and seconder of the motion, the Chair and officers.

RESOLVED that it being 1.16 p.m. that the meeting be reconvened. In accordance with paragraph 9.7 of the Planning Code of Conduct, the Chair invited the mover of the motion, Councillor Lane, to address the Committee.

RESOLVED that it being 1.00 pm that the meeting continue in order for the remaining business to be transacted.

Councillor Lane read the amended motion and reasons to the Committee.

RESOLVED (8 for, 1 against, 0 abstained) that in accordance with Paragraph 9.6 of the Planning Code of Conduct that the application be deferred for at least two cycles to test the following reasons for approval contrary to officers recommendation:

1.    There is compelling evidence that such a restriction is justified in accordance with Policy DM18.

2.    On balance, the main reason of Policy DM18 outweighs the harm.

3.    On balance, the minimum space for amenity could be acceptable in planning terms.