Appeal 6002016

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from coach house/garage into holiday let accommodation at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , Northam, Bideford [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref 1/0757/2025/FUL, without compliance with condition number 4 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 1/0581/2011/FUL, dated 12th October 2011 and subject to the following conditions:.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos TDC.5. 11.1.1; TDC.5 11.1.2; TDC.5.11.1.3; and TDC.5.11.1.4.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development of the types described in Part 1, [name] (enlargement, improvement or alteration of a dwellinghouse), B (addition or alteration to its roof), C (other alteration to its roof) and E (development within the curtilage) of Schedule 2, rather than that hereby permitted shall be carried out without the written permission of the local planning authority.

Upon commencement of the use hereby approved the owner/site operator shall keep a record of all persons who have occupied the caravan/mobile home/barn conversion/buildings(s) for holiday purposes including details of the duration of their stay. The form in which such records shall be kept should be agreed in writing with the local planning authority upon prior written request.

The areas shown for parking and turning for the holiday accommodation on the approved plans shall be set aside and made available for the occupiers of the accommodation hereby approved.

The appeal building was granted permission in 2011 to be converted from a coach house/garage to a holiday let. That permission includes a number of conditions including No 4, which restricts occupancy of the unit to holiday accommodation. The reason given for the condition relates to inadequate private parking and amenity space for the building to be acceptable as a separate unit of accommodation.

The Council states that the appeal building is a dwellinghouse, though is concerned that the amount of internal space would not meet technical requirements of [name] (NDSS). Conversely, the appellant argues that the dwelling would provide an acceptable unit of living accommodation for a single person or couple.

The Council raises concerns with other conditions relating to the original permission. While noted, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is clear that under section 73 the local planning authority must only consider the disputed condition/s that are the subject of the application; it is not a complete re-consideration of the application. The appellant has not applied to remove or vary any other conditions and states in the application form that no operational development is proposed. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of what has been applied for. Having paid regard to interested party representations, compliance, or otherwise with other conditions will be a matter for the parties.

I therefore consider the main issue to be the effect that varying condition 4 would have on the living conditions of future occupants with regard to accommodation space.

It is claimed that the NDSS would not apply to this proposal because the effect of removing the condition would not create a new dwelling; rather its occupancy would not be restricted. Either way, it is still necessary to examine whether or not the proposal would result in suitable accommodation for occupation on a permanent basis. This is because the day-to-day requirements and expectations of a permanent resident will differ from those taking a holiday.

It is acknowledged that the original permission was granted at a time when a different local plan was in place and prior to the introduction of the NDSS. The condition refers to ‘amenity space for the building’, and there is therefore little reason why this could not relate to the provision of internal space.

The appeal building is said to have about 45sqm of internal floorspace, which the Council describes as being less than the minimum 70sqm set out in the NDSS for a 2 storey, 2 bedroom, 3-person dwelling. Be that as it may, having observed the internal arrangements of the property, it is clear that it could also be suited to a single person or couple, particularly given its urban location. It would not automatically follow that both rooms upstairs would have to be used as bedrooms. A single occupant or couple may wish to use the smaller room as an office or other living space.

In that context, the NDSS does not attach a minimum internal floor area for a single person household over 2 storeys, though the appeal building exceeds the 37sqm for a 1-person unit over 1 storey. While the internal space would fall marginally short of the expected floor area for 2 people living in a 2-storey unit, the vaulted ceilings with rooflights provide a good sense of space. Additionally, the main bedroom has an internal storage area, and the open plan living room on the ground floor was well laid out without feeling unduly cramped. This would accord with design principles set out in DM04 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan (LP). Collectively, these features also demonstrate that the building is more than capable of being permanently occupied without major extension or alterations, required by LP Policy DM18.

The Council has referred to conflict with LP Policy DM01, which, in part, aims to protect the amenity of intended occupants from existing or allocated uses. In that vein, DM04 seeks to ensure the amenities of existing and future neighbouring occupiers are safeguarded. A residential use would continue and there is little evidence the development would have any meaningful effect on the living conditions of future neighbouring occupiers or existing uses.

For the reasons given, varying condition 4 by deleting it would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of future occupants with regard to accommodation space. As such there would be no conflict with LP policies DM01, DM04, or DM18.

By allowing this appeal a new planning permission is created. The PPG advises that, for clarity, decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 should restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect, unless they have already been discharged.

As mentioned earlier, the appeal does not seek to alter other conditions and therefore a new parking plan condition is not reasonable. In the interests of the free flow of traffic and noting the requirements of LP Policy DM05, I have reimposed that which accompanies the original permission. Compliance with it will be a matter for the parties. Furthermore, I have been provided with no substantive evidence that the existing parking arrangement or that originally permitted would be unsuitable in the event the appeal is allowed.

It is not reasonable to attempt to impose further restrictions on certain permitted development rights, as this would be more onerous than the original permission that ensues. I have therefore reimposed, but not modified, the permitted development restriction condition.

In that context, the holiday register condition does not need to be removed to make this development acceptable and could still take effect. The appellant has not applied for its removal, and I have therefore reimposed it. Under section 73, a time limit condition cannot be imposed as the development has already commenced.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will grant a new planning permission with varied conditions as set out in the formal