Appeal 6001191

The appeal is dismissed.

The timber frame building has been constructed and is now known as “ [site address] ”. This building has been used as tourist accommodation. The Shepherd’s hut has also been constructed and has been used as tourist accommodation. The appellant has indicated that the Shepherd’s hut would be removed from the site as part of the proposal.

The appellant seeks to remove Condition 6 from the Original Planning Permission1. In summary, the reason given for the Condition was to ensure that the development complies with the spatial strategy and to ensure that the tourist accommodation is retained.

As such, the main issue of the appeal is whether Condition 6 is reasonable and necessary, with particular regard to the spatial strategy and the protection of tourist accommodation. 1 Planning permission Ref. 17/01793/FUL

Policy SS1 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, April 2019 (LP) outlines the spatial strategy and the settlement hierarchy for the area. The appeal site is located within the countryside for the purposes of the LP. LP Policy GD3 details the types of development that would be permitted in the countryside. It indicates that rural housing will be permitted in accordance with LP Policy GD4.

As [site address] already exists, the appellant disputes whether LP Policy GD4 is strictly relevant as it concerns new housing in the countryside. If LP Policy GD4 is not relevant, the proposal would not comply with LP Policy GD3 as it would result in rural housing in the countryside which is not in accordance with LP Policy GD4.

Notwithstanding the above, the ability for [site address] to be occupied permanently rather than temporarily as tourist accommodation would be a material change of use. Therefore, I conclude that the removal of Condition 6 would result in a new house in the countryside. LP Policy GD4 is a permissive policy which identifies the scenarios where new residential development would be permitted. The proposal does not comply with the criteria and would therefore be contrary to LP Policy GD4. Due to the policies’ interdependence, the proposal would also be contrary to LP Policy GD3.

LP Policy RT4 indicates that the potential of tourism in the District will be maximised. This includes by supporting the retention of tourist accommodation. The removal of Condition 6 could allow [site address] to no longer be used as tourist accommodation. Accordingly, the proposed removal of Condition 6 would be contrary to LP Policy RT4.

The [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2031, November 2018 (BONP) also forms part of the development plan. [site address] is outside of the defined Limits to Development identified within BONP. BONP Policy S2 outlines development in this area will be controlled in accordance with the development plan. The proposal would be contrary to BONP Policy S2, due to the aforementioned conflict with LP policies.

The evidence indicates that the tourist accommodation is generating less revenue year on year. Whilst substantive evidence in relation to costs has not been provided, it is not disputed that the cost of operating the tourist accommodation would have significantly increased since it was first operational. The appellant has also indicated that the accommodation recently made an annual loss. Nonetheless, within their Statement of Case the appellant states: “... the planning argument is not that the holiday let cannot turn a profit.” Therefore, it is not disputed that the tourist accommodation is viable.

One factor which appears to have contributed to the decreasing revenue generated by the tourist accommodation is the increase in supply of holiday lets. [name] has experienced the highest proportionate increase in holiday lets since September 2019 when compared to other regions across England, Wales and Scotland2. There are also 9 competing holiday lets within a 4-mile radius of the appeal site which have been listed on AirBnB since planning permission was granted for the tourist accommodation. At a more local level, there are 4 holiday 2 Awaze, Short term holiday rental market trends, UK wide, [name] and [name] district and catchment area lets listed within [site address] since [site address] ’s inception. As such, it is clear that there is a good supply of holiday lets in the area and this has increased in recent years. Nevertheless, there is no cogent evidence that the market for holiday lets in this area is fully saturated as the tourist accommodation remains viable. Removing the occupancy restrictions on viable tourist accommodation would not maximise the tourist potential of the region as required by LP Policy RT4.

The appellant has been trying to sell their property, The Old Farmhouse, which neighbours [site address] for over 2 years. Initially the appellant’s property was marketed with the tourist accommodation but has subsequently been marketed separately. Moreover, the asking price for The Old Farmhouse has been reduced. It is clear from the marketing agents’ testimonies that the main reason why that property has not sold is due to the proximity of tourist accommodation.

Notwithstanding this, the planning process is primarily concerned with public interest. The effect of development on the marketability, and the sales price of buildings are both matters of private interest. Therefore, they hold very limited weight in the planning balance.

I note that the proposed removal of Condition 6 would help boost the Council’s supply of homes. The appellant is looking to downsize so this would free up a family sized dwelling. However, given the scale of the development I only ascribe limited weight to these benefits. The appellant contends that the proposed removal of Condition 6 would make an effective use of land by promoting the development of an under-utilised building. The appellant also indicates that decisions should enable a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances. Nevertheless, the accommodation is still viable, as such, the building is not under-utilised. Also, the economic circumstances have not changed enough to justify the removal of Condition 6.

The Council’s suggested amended condition does imply that it would consider the loss of tourist accommodation acceptable in specific circumstances subject to other restrictions. But the Council has been consistent in its objection to the complete removal of Condition 6.

Despite the tourist accommodation being located within a cluster of development, it is remote from the nearest settlements and the services and facilities necessary to support the day-to-day needs of future occupiers. Accordingly, removing Condition 6 without support from the development plan could set an unhelpful precedence where housing is accepted in unsustainable locations. The imposition of a condition requiring the appellant to occupy [site address] for a period of time would remove the incentive for a quick sale. However, it would not address the precedent set by the proposal; as once that time period has expired the property would not be subject to any occupancy restrictions.

LP Policy H3 supports the development of small numbers of market homes on rural exception sites where they are essential to the delivery of affordable units, amongst other matters. The proposal does not include affordable housing and therefore would not comply with LP Policy H3.

Condition 6 is both reasonable and necessary, having particular regard to the spatial strategy and the protection of tourist accommodation. The removal of Condition 6 would be contrary to LP policies SS1, GD3, GD4 and RT4 and BONP Policy S2, for the reasons set out above.

The proposed removal of Condition 6 conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.