TUESDAY 07 DECEMBER 2004
TCP/19380/P P/02520/03 Use of holiday occupancy conditions.
TCP/24112/B P/01123/03
Officer: Chris Hougham (Development Control Manager) Tel: (01983) 825576
Summary
To
consider the outcome of two recent appeal decisions which both focussed on
holiday occupation conditions and to advise Members on the future application
and imposition of this type of condition.
Background
Members
of this Committee know that when granting permission for tourist development that
involves accommodation we impose what are commonly known as holiday occupation
conditions.
One
of the conditions used regularly for a
considerable period of time features in our standard conditions book and
relates to a restriction limiting occupation by an individual or group to a
total of six weeks in any year; the conditions reads:
The
occupation of the
., hereby approved shall be limited to holiday use only and
they shall not be occupied by any person, or family, or group of persons for a
period in total exceeding six weeks in any rolling year without the prior
written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
The
reason we give for the imposition of this condition is that the use of the
accommodation for all year round occupation would conflict with Policy T10 (The
Use of New Tourist Accommodation for Permanent Residential Use) of the Unitary
Development Plan.
On
occasions we have also imposed a condition to ensure that existing buildings
converted into holiday flats are retained as one property and not leased or
sold off separately.
This
report relates to two applications, one which was refused and the other granted
permission on conditional basis.
·
Variation of condition
in respect of planning permission for 42 holiday chalets (replacing 44
caravans) at Gurnard Pines Holiday Village, Cockleton Lane, Gurnard.
·
Five holiday units on
land rear of Marlborough Hotel, Alexandra Road, Shanklin.
Both
decisions resulted in appeals to the Planning Inspectorate.
The
appeal at Gurnard Pines related to the aforementioned six week occupancy
condition and the appeal at Shanklin related to the condition that required the
resulting holiday flats to be retained as one property.
The
Planning Inspector handling these two appeals decided that the main issue was
whether the conditions were reasonable and necessary in relation to the aims of
national and local policy to support tourism. Members are advised that
both these appeals have been allowed and planning permission Is granted subject
to a single condition which states that the occupation of the accommodation
shall be limited to holiday use only.
I
appreciate that a number of Members have a specific interest in the occupation
of holiday accommodation and a copy of each appeal decision together with an
analysis prepared by our Appeals Officer is attached to this report. The appeal
at Gurnard was specifically in respect of an application to vary a condition
whereas the appeal at Shanklin was made in respect of a condition on a planning
permission but under Section 79 (1) the Inspector correctly identified that all
conditions were before her for consideration, as indeed was the original
permission.
These
decisions have caused officers employed in the Development Control Team to
review the need, imposition and justification for continuing to impose these
conditions on similar developments and the implications in terms of overall
control and our vulnerability to potential challenge by aggrieved applicants.
Financial Implications
There
are no direct financial implications in connection with this issue but
indirectly the continued imposition of these conditions, in conflict with both
national and local planning policies; advice contained in Circular 11/95 and
the recent appeal decisions, would be unreasonable, possibly unlawful, and
would not be making the best possible use of limited resources particularly if
the imposition happens to be the subject of an appeal where, if we are dealing
with a local inquiry or a hearing, means we could be facing an application for
an award of costs for unreasonable behaviour.
|
Options 1.
That Members note
the decision taken by Officers to discontinue the imposition of holiday
occupancy conditions other than the standard condition contained in Circular
11/95 and used by the Inspector on the two appeals. 2.
That Members note
the decision taken by Officers to discontinue the imposition of these type of
occupancy conditions but ask that further consideration be given to
developing specific policies which could be supported by identical or similar
conditions through the eventual approval of the Local Development Framework. |
Conclusions
There has been concern for a considerable period of time that
it would be very difficult to sustain holiday occupation conditions which fail
to accord with national policy and are not supported in our own Unitary
Development Plan. Consequently, Members will understand that Officers were not
unduly surprised by the outcome of these two appeals. When reading the decision
letters attached to this report, Members will see that the inspector has
substantiated her decision, in both cases, not to support the imposition of the
six week restriction or maintaining holiday accommodation as one property.
Members will note that the inspector states:
.that the variation of the condition would fly in the face of the
definition of tourism in PPG1.The clause would thus be unduly restrictive, in
the absence of proven harm.
I consider that, in contrast to the monitoring of permanent residential
occupation, the six week clause would be difficult to enforce without the sort
of intrusive checks on occupants that would be contrary to advice in Annex C of
PPG21
I find that it is unnecessary, unreasonable and unduly restrictive.
My assessment of these two decisions is that the Inspector
has correctly applied both national policy (PPG21 Tourism) and local policies
contained in our own Unitary Development Plan by allowing the appeals, removing
the said condition(s) and substituting the standard condition set out in
Circular 11/95. Officers have discussed this matter and have concluded that it
would not be appropriate, possibly unlawful, and indeed could prove to be
futile to continue to impose conditions of this nature particularly as they
fail to comply with national/local policy; they are not enforceable and they
could not be sustained on appeal.
This is an issue that Members may expect to be considered as
part of the preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF) but it is
clear that the present circumstances dictate that we must discontinue the
imposition of these occupancy conditions other than the one imposed by the
inspector.
|
RECOMMENDATION That Members note the decision taken by Officers to discontinue the imposition of holiday occupancy conditions other than the standard condition contained in Circular 11/95 and used by the Inspector on the two appeals. |
Contact point: Chris Hougham, Development Control Manager Tel:(01983) 825576
Head of Planning Services