Appeal 6004617

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission PA25/08533 (the planning permission) was approved subject to conditions. This proposal seeks to remove condition 3, which prevents the residential unit permitted by the planning permission from being used as a second or holiday home.

The appellant argues that condition 3 is not proportionate to achieve the objectives of the Polperro & Lansallos Neighbourhood Development Plan 2017-2030 (NDP). It is also argued that it fails to meet several tests of conditions as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, and in particular that the condition is not necessary, relevant to the development, or reasonable.

The main issue is whether or not disputed condition 3 is necessary, relevant to the development and otherwise reasonable in the interests of the local housing strategy and other material considerations.

At the time of the drafting of the NDP, the Polperro and Lansallos Parish had a high proportion of existing houses which were either owned as second homes or rented as short term holiday lets. The NDP continues that the diminishing proportion of fully occupied houses throughout the year results in a noticeable sense of emptiness during the off-season, and an erosion of support for basic businesses and for social life within the community.

In order to maintain or increase the proportion of rented homes in the Parish that are occupied on a full-time, year-around basis, NDP Policy 5.1 requires that new open-market housing will only be permitted where there is a condition restricting occupancy as a principal residence. Given the justifications and intention of NDP Policy 5.1, the Policy has a clear planning purpose.

The evidence base associated with the NDP and resultant policy justification was based on both the 2011 census, and a survey completed during December 2017, indicating that 40% of dwellings in the lower part of Polperro were either holiday lets or second homes.

It is put to me that newer data from the 2021 census indicates that approximately 5% of people who undertook the census have a UK second address, and therefore based on this later data, the majority of people living in the parish are permanent residents, not second home owners. However, this census data is resident based, as opposed to dwelling based, and data was collected following the Covid pandemic and associated lockdowns which may have affected some people’s choice of usual residence at the time of the census being undertaken.

Moreover, council tax data for second homes indicate that there has been a slight decrease in second home ownership, with the percentage of second homes decreasing by 2% from 2021 to 12% in 2026. This figure, whilst notably lower than that from the 2017 survey does not include holiday homes which may be rated for business rate purposes, or properties which may be classed as a primary home, with owners having a second home elsewhere. However, given the difference in percentage between the 2021 council tax data and 2021 census data, I find this evidence further calls into doubt the ability of the 2021 census data to accurately indicate second and holiday home use.

I therefore find the census data, on its own, to be an unpersuasive indicator of the proportion of homes currently utilised as second homes or holiday lets, and in the absence of any other substantive evidence of second and holiday homes in the area, council tax data to be more compelling.

Even with the apparent reduction in second and holiday homes over recent times, it is clear there is still a relatively high percentage of second homes, which is likely to be greater than that shown within the council tax data. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that there is no longer a need to restrict occupancy of new dwellings as a principal residence.

The flat permitted within the planning permission is modest in size. It nevertheless constitutes a new unit of residential accommodation within Planning Use Class C3. Although NDP Policy 5.1 refers to ‘housing’, it does not actively differentiate or preclude differing scales of accommodation, or indeed residential units formed from the conversion from other uses.

Whilst family sized dwellings may provide additional benefits to the community than small scale flats, I see no reason why occupiers of flats such as that subject to the appeal, would not nevertheless provide a contribution to businesses and social life in the community.

Furthermore, I have no substantive evidence, even given the location of the flat above a café (which is not unusual within a town or village centre) or flood resilience measures, that such housing, which is often more reasonably priced, is not required or would be unattractive to future owners or renters as a principal home. Removing condition 3 could disadvantage people seeking reasonably priced dwellings in the area to serve as their permanent residence, particularly given the evidenced high prices in the area. As such, even considering the specific circumstances of the appeal property, condition 3 is a necessary condition as required by NPD Policy 5.1.

Whilst the removal of condition 3 would allow a more flexible use, such as for holiday accommodation, I have no substantive evidence that over a yearly period this would have significant benefits on the local economy over and above that of the flat being occupied as a principal residence. Moreover, occupiers of the flat as a principal residence would also support services and facilities over the year, as well as potentially providing social benefit as a permanent part of the local community. I therefore do not find that removal of condition 3 is likely to result in any demonstrable benefits to the local economy or community, over and above that with the condition imposed.

Additionally, whilst the approved residential unit would remain as a C3 use notwithstanding if it were a principal residence or a second home, I cannot agree that condition 3 is not relevant to the development. The planning permission clearly permits an additional residential unit to the areas housing stock. Without principal occupancy conditions on new residential units (be them houses or flats), the aims of NDP Policy 5.1 would be delayed or not achieved. It follows that I find condition 3 is proportionate and both relevant to the development proposed and reasonable.

I agree with the appellant that the appeal decision that has been put before me by the appellant materially differs in several ways to the proposal before me. Notwithstanding the Inspector in that appeal also found that an occupancy condition was still required, I have determined this appeal based on the evidence before me, and the particular material considerations and circumstance of the appeal site and proposal.

To conclude, condition 3 is necessary, relevant to the development and otherwise reasonable in the interests of the local housing strategy and other material considerations. Removal of the condition would conflict with NDP Policy 5.1, the purposes of which I have previously outlined.

Given that condition 3 requires the occupant to supply the local planning authority with such information they may reasonably require in order to determine if the condition is being complied with, I see no reason why the condition could not be reasonably monitored, or if required enforced by the local planning authority.

Even if the proposed removal of condition 3 does not result in any additional harm to local residents living conditions, or an intensification of traffic leading to highway concerns, these matters are neutral, and do not represent a positive benefit in favour of the proposal.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.