Planning permission - Residence vs Holiday property

[Ben Beardmore]

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:-

• 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?

 

[^woody^]

An applicant can't select what use class their property will be placed. A holiday let for a single family is the same as a residential home, so is C3.

A holiday let for multiple families or groups won't be C3, and may well fall under Sui Generis.

 

[Ben Beardmore]

It is a single bedroom property but the Planning Officer decided to treat it as sui generis because of the short-term holiday let issue. My understanding is that the officers decision was wrong as most holiday lets under 6 occupants are treated as C3 as you suggest.
Question is how can I challenge this. Are there examples.
The reason i want it as C3 is because C3 must have amenity space and this building has none.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Why are you objecting?

 

[^woody^]

You are invited to comment, that's it, and the council planner decides whether to heed any comment. The application is between the applicant and the council only, and after a decision is made your only option is via the courts.

 

[Ben Beardmore]

Because the " AirBNB "guests are using our open land which borders the building in question on 3 sides. The building has no amenity space of its own. The building has right of access over our land but has no usage rights whatsoever. It is located in one corner of our walled plot. Because of this, there are no fences or borders around the building. Our land (on which we have buildings) and the AirBNB building are on leases going back to 1809 and 1821 respectively.
Despite frequent trespass for partying and sports on oiur land the planning officer has ruled that amenity space is not necessary.

I contend that in the case of Moore v SSCLG, Lord Justice Sullivan suggested six issues which should be judged by its impact on neighbours. He did not suggest that the list should be limited to these six only. The definition of sui generis means each such usage is unique implying that other issues could be considered.
There is also the metrics of fact and degree to be considered in individual cases. The fact has been self evident here and the degree confirmed by the frequency of the trespasses. I suggest that provision of amenity is crucial in this case because the building has zero amenity space around it. All the neighbours suffer from noise and disturbance during these trespasses.

So, I want the officer to rule that amenity space is necessary in this case. That way we can block the development into AirBNB

Does that make sense and how do you reckon my chances?

 

[^woody^]

my chances?

Chances of what? You get to comment, that's all.

 

[Ben Beardmore]

OK, what's the best way of persuading the PO that amenity space is it necessary? Is it a matter of "fact and degree"