- Joined
- 17 Nov 2022
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
We raised objections to a Planning Application for conversion of a storage facility (old stone building) classified as "B8". The applicant was previously refused permission twice when he applied to convert the building to "Residence" class "C3".
He has now applied to convert the storage facility to "HOLIDAY LET ACCOMODATION (SUI-GENERIS)" SUI-GENERIS apparently means "in a class of its own"
In the planning questionaire, to question ...... Does the proposal add the gain, loss of use of residential units? He confirmed "Yes" of residential units.
Later he selected "Market Housing" as the type of property being proposed.
To any sensible person a residence used as a holiday let is a residence NOT a special case. Looling for examples of Sui Generis has turned up:-
He has now applied to convert the storage facility to "HOLIDAY LET ACCOMODATION (SUI-GENERIS)" SUI-GENERIS apparently means "in a class of its own"
In the planning questionaire, to question ...... Does the proposal add the gain, loss of use of residential units? He confirmed "Yes" of residential units.
Later he selected "Market Housing" as the type of property being proposed.
To any sensible person a residence used as a holiday let is a residence NOT a special case. Looling for examples of Sui Generis has turned up:-
- Theatres.
- Houses in multiple paying occupation.
- Hostels providing no significant element of care.
- Scrap yards.
- Petrol filling stations and shops selling and / or displaying motor vehicles.
- Retail warehouse clubs.
- Nightclubs.
- Launderettes.
- Dry cleaners.
- Taxi businesses.
- Amusement centres.
- Casinos.
- Data Centres
- I suspect a conspiracy because the Planning Officer is saying that the use as holiday let (AirBNB) is essentially different from that of a residence. So this allows him to make decision in the absence of statutory guidance with respect to holiday lets. So he has waved away neighbours objections concerning:-
1. The fact that the building has no amenity space whatsoever with the result that "guests" are using a piece of open grassland next door where garages are located. This land is not owned by the applicant. He does have right of access only. No usage rights whatsoever.
2. That there will be increased traffic movement arising in an area with very narrow back streets where cars have to mount the pavement in order to pass or park.
The question is how can I squash this sui generis nonsense?