Agenda item

We considered the report of the application together with late correspondence, which was presented for refusal for the reason outlined in the report.

 

The local Member for Gobion Fawr, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         The current business enhances the area seeking to attract tourism from afar.

 

·         The business aspires to five-star rating receiving excellent reviews from guests.

 

·         Visitors will contribute to the local economy by visiting local restaurants, public houses and shops, as well as tourist facilities.

 

·         Developing a luxury tourist offer requires appropriate levels of service and supervision.

 

·         The business is a diversified enterprise associated with the large farming business more than two miles away. All the existing staff associated with the farm are employed on the farm.  The intention is for the holiday let business at Alice Springs to be operated by appropriately, highly skilled specialist employees.

 

·         It has become unrealistic to service the guests from a remote location on a farm two miles away.  There is a need for 24-hour on-site support for guests who may arrive at various times throughout the day or evening.

 

·         There is concern for elderly guests and guests with disabilities who might require support on arrival during their stay. Guests might fall ill or have an accident when the site is not attended.

 

·         The site requires a Manager’s dwelling allowing the constant presence of an experienced manager with appropriate skills including first aid training. With the potential for having 64 guests on site, it was considered unreasonable not to have a 24-hour on-site presence. It would be difficult for staff located on the farm two miles away to provide such a service with the management skills required for the holiday let business.

 

·         The full-time manager would be an experienced professional and would likely have a family with a partner also being employed on the site.

 

·         The Council accepts that this is a long-term viable business and that there is a need for emergency cover.  The Council welcomes the holiday accommodation and acknowledges the manager’s dwelling would provide effective management.

 

·         The only issue being put forward to refuse the application is that the site could be managed by farm-based staff two miles away.  The suggestion has been made for a nightwatchman to fulfil the need for emergency cover. However, this does not recognise the requirements of running and supporting a high-end tourist accommodation of up to 64 guests.

 

·         It has been suggested that one of the holiday lets could be used to accommodate the proposed Manager. However, the Manager is likely to have a partner and possibly children requiring two holiday lets to be reconfigured with a substantial loss of income to the site.

 

·         The business requires a 24-hour on-site presence of an experienced manager with an appropriate on-site manager’s dwelling that allows for a partner and family.

 

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, the following points were noted:

 

·         Some Members expressed support for the application. Having a full time Manager on site would be beneficial to the business and guests. It would be impractical for staff on the farm to look after guests from over two miles away as it would take them away from their main role as well as requiring them to undertake duties in which they are not trained.

 

·         The site has been constructed to a high standard with the plans submitted being in keeping with this. It was considered that a new property would be in keeping with the existing business. Having a larger property would appeal to a wider range of people with families to apply for a managerial position. The proposed development will not affect any neighbouring properties.

 

·         The officer’s recommendation for a condition to prevent the dwelling from becoming a residential property was welcomed. The proposed dwelling would be a natural development for the business providing security for guests.

 

·         No objections have been received from the Highways Department.

 

·         A shop on site will reduce the number of car journeys required.

 

·         Due to the location of the site there will be no detrimental impacts on other businesses in the area.

 

·         Some Members considered that the application did comply with TAN 6 and the applicant had identified the need for a full-time on-site manager.

 

·         Concern was expressed that the application had taken two years to be considered by Planning Committee.

 

·         If the application is approved, a condition would be required to tie the proposed dwelling to the business.

 

·         Other Members expressed their support for the officer recommendation for refusal of the application.

 

·         There are several houses locally near the site in which a manager could live.

 

·         The business is a holiday let and not a hotel. It was considered that there was no requirement for a four bedroomed house to be built next to holiday accommodation in the open countryside.

 

·         It would be unreasonable for one person to provide 24-hour support.

 

The Head of Planning provided the Committee with the following information:

 

·         In order for a new dwelling to be constructed in the open countryside there has to be sufficient evidence within the application via TAN 6. A functional test and financial requirements must be met for the dwelling to be built.

 

·         Officers have reviewed the application with external consultants and fully support the business in developing and promoting the economic generation that it delivers for Monmouthshire but have concluded that there is not enough evidence via TAN 6 for the four bedroomed dwelling to be built on this site in the open countryside. A functional need for this dwelling has not been established.

 

The Development Management Area Manager informed the Committee that:

 

·         Tourism is a vital part of Monmouthshire’s economy.  However, the tests as to whether it is required that an employee lives on site to manage that tourism enterprise is a separate matter. Not all the tests have been met to allow the building of a dwelling in the countryside.

 

·         Guest arrivals can be managed by a dedicated employee of this business but there is no requirement for them to live on the site.

 

·         This is a holiday let for all ages and is not specifically for over 50s use.

 

·         Staff working shifts, exclusive to this report, could be available to deal with any issues that might arise at the holiday let without the need for anyone to be living on the site.

 

·         Phosphates at the site are not considered to be harmful. Sustainable Drainage Approval Body (SAB) would be required via a separate process to the application.

 

The local Member summed up as follows:

 

·         The Authority needs to demonstrate support for local businesses and investors in those businesses to develop in a reasonable way.

 

·         There is an understanding for the need for someone to be on site.

 

·         It is not for the local Authority to tell a business manager / owner how to run their business successfully.

 

·         For the business to operate there is a need for someone to be living on the site. This might be a couple, potentially with children.  This is the rationale for having a property with four bedrooms.

 

·         The applicant has invested heavily and knows how the business needs to operate.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor B. Callard and seconded by County Councillor J. Butler  that application DM/2021/00036 be refused for the following reason:

 

It has not been reasonably demonstrated that the proposed Rural Enterprise Dwelling meets the tests of Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (July 2010). There is insufficient evidence to show that a new worker would need to live at the site of the apartments and that the complex could not be adequately managed by someone living close by or by more than one person working in shifts.

 

Upon being put to the vote the following votes were recorded:

 

Agree to refuse the application                 -           10

Disagree to refuse the application            -           3

Abstentions                                                   -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2021/00036 be refused for the following reason:

 

It has not been reasonably demonstrated that the proposed Rural Enterprise Dwelling meets the tests of Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (July 2010). There is insufficient evidence to show that a new worker would need to live at the site of the apartments and that the complex could not be adequately managed by someone living close by or by more than one person working in shifts.