Agenda item

Decision

RESOLVED

To respond to the consultations as outlined in Appendix A to the report

Reason for the decision:

To support government proposals to introduce a more effective regulatory framework for the use of dwellings for purposes other than as principal residences and hence give local authorities better tools to manage the potential impacts of such uses.

The Chairman invited Cllr A Brown, Portfolio Holder for Planning & Enforcement, to introduce this item.

Cllr Brown explained that the report sought Cabinet’s support to agree a response on behalf of the Council to two consultations proposing to introduce new regulations in relation to the use of dwellings as temporary letting accommodation. He said that it had ‘crept upon’ the Council over the election period. He said that it was long overdue. It was in reference to short term holiday lets and second homes registration and explained that the current system for logging second homes in the District was quite ad hoc and used a number of methods. Therefore, a mandatory national registration scheme was welcomed and it would assist with planning in the District and help identify where the majority of second homes were located. He said that it was curious that it didn’t extend to second homes and change of use in terms of planning. It was also odd that it was a cheap option to roll out the permitted development system across the country. He said that economies of scale had clearly come into play. Cllr Brown concluded by saying that the proposals were broadly welcomed and it was likely that the outcome would not come into effect for a while, probably not until the next Government was in place.

The Chairman invited the Planning Policy Manager to speak. He said that there were two proposals, related to each other.

1.     Registering holiday accommodation

2.     New change of use requirement for some types of holiday accommodation

He said that it was disappointing that the consultation largely side-stepped the issue of second homes. The fact it specifically referred to temporary letting accommodation, meant that second home-owners who did not let out their homes, would sit entirely outside the registration scheme and the change of use requirement. He said it was possible that there would be a further, separate consultation on second home issues. He concluded that broadly, the Council was supportive of the proposals.

The Chairman sought clarification that the Government was seeking to introduce a new change of use category for some temporary letting accommodation but that this would be dealt with via permitted development, without permission. The Planning Policy Manager replied that the Government was intending to alter the change of use class order to say that temporary letting accommodation would require planning permission but then introducing a nationwide permitted development right to grant permission. The mechanism for Local Authorities to go through to secure control would be to serve an Article 4 Direction which removes the permitted development allowance granted by Government. He said that the Council’s response had requested a straightforward route for introducing the need for planning permission for the change of use of a property.

The Chairman said it was recognised that holiday lets brought value to the District and acknowledged that they contributed to the local economy. He asked if there was value in the proposals without additional policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) allowing local authorities to set a ceiling on the number of holiday lets. He said a locally controlled number was the key.

The Planning Policy Manager agreed saying that there were two stages. The first was to allow control to be exercised locally through the need for planning permission. The second was to determine how to exercise these controls via planning policy. He said that at some point members would have to consider what policies to apply and whether to set thresholds in some parts of the District, such as the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Such decisions should be made locally not nationally.

Cllr H Blathwayt said that he was supportive of the 30 day option rather than 60 or 90 days. He said he couldn’t see the sense in limiting camping on a field to 28 days but allowing homes to be let for 60 or 90 days.

Cllr W Fredericks thanked officers for their work on this. She said that it was a half-hearted attempt to out something out into the public domain on holiday lets.

It was proposed by Cllr A Brown, seconded by Cllr T Adams and

RESOLVED

To respond to the consultations as outlined in Appendix A to the report

Reason for the decision:

To support government proposals to introduce a more effective regulatory framework for the use of dwellings for purposes other than as principal residences and hence give local authorities better tools to manage the potential impacts of such uses.