Short-term holiday accommodation at Top Croft, Aston Lane, Hope

What was proposed

The application sought to vary two conditions to allow the outbuilding to be used for short-term holiday accommodation.

“The application proposes to vary planning permission NP/HPK/0223/0165 to enable the use of the outbuilding for short-term holiday accommodation.”

“Notwithstanding this, the proposed variation of conditions 2 and 5 would result in a recently constructed building being used for holiday accommodation. This would be in conflict with Core Strategy policy RT2 which seeks to direct investment for holiday uses into traditional buildings that integrate well with the valued local character and enable visitors to enjoy this as one of the special qualities of the National Park.”

Officer report

The site and building

The recently constructed building lies beside agricultural outbuildings, is clad in black metal sheeting and has views across open countryside.

“Located to the west of the property, between the southern gable and eastern elevation of the adjacent agricultural buildings is a recently constructed building. The building’s southern gable forms its principal elevation, featuring a set of double-glazed doors, a ground floor window and a first-floor window in the centre of the building below the apex of the roof.”

“The building is clad in vertical black profiled metal sheeting with black-framed windows and doors. It has rooflights on its eastern roofslope.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because using the modern, non-traditional outbuilding for holiday accommodation conflicted with Core Strategy Policy RT2.

“That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:”

“The development would introduce holiday accommodation into a modern outbuilding that is not a traditional building of historic or vernacular merit. The development is therefore unacceptable in principle and would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy RT2.”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

Officers found no appreciable harm to landscape, residential amenity or highway safety, but considered policy harm outweighed the proposal’s modest benefits.

“This report has outlined that the proposed use of the building for holiday accommodation would not impact the special qualities of the National Park, residential amenity or highway safety. As outlined above, the proposal would provide modest economic benefits and enable the public to enjoy the special qualities of the National Park. These are material planning considerations which offer some benefits in the planning balance.”

“As such, Officers consider this application could severely harm the strategic aims of planning policy in the National Park. Whilst it is accepted that there are material planning considerations which weigh in favour of the proposal, the potential harm to the planning policy would outweigh the positive material planning considerations.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, the highway authority raised no objection, and the borough council had not responded.

“Hope with Aston Parish Council: Objection: This application for a change of use comes only two and a half years after an original application for demolition of an old garage and erection of a replacement ancillary building, designed as a gym and office. The work has already been completed to provide short term rental space instead, so this seems as if it is a retrospective application.”

Officer report

Public representations

Five representations supported the proposal, citing limited disturbance, economic benefits and opportunities for visitors to enjoy the National Park.

“The following reasons for support were given: - No increased noise or traffic locality; - Proposal does not impact Aston or lead to disturbance to local residents; - Economic benefits associated with increased tourists to the area, citing benefits to local families, cafes, pubs and shops; - The holiday-let is managed responsibility and respectfully; - Has enabled visitors to neighbouring properties to stay in accommodation nearby; - Improved ability for people to…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke under the public participation scheme.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed the original permission, the ancillary-use condition, the building’s garage classification and whether it was already a commercial letting.

“Whether this variation in the existing planning permission would have been acceptable on the original application. • It was noted that there was a condition to limit the use of outbuilding so that it was an ancillary unit to the house and a not a separate unit of occupation. • The unit is classified as a garage however there was no vehicular access to it. Members felt this was already being used as a commercial letting property.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members’ motion to approve with amended and additional conditions was not carried, while a motion to refuse was carried.

“A motion to approve the application, with amended and additional conditions, was moved and seconded, put to the vote but not carried.”

“A motion to refuse the application was moved and seconded, put to the vote and carried.”

Minutes