Change of use from holiday to residential

GDB2222

Ah yes, you got me there IIMH! Must pay more attention in future.

planning_officer

Ivana_Tinkle wrote: »

I'm fairly sure this isn't correct. Here in Cornwall, it's very common for people to be granted permission to convert their outbuildings to holiday lets, but the planning permission is always very explicit that they are only to be used for holiday lets. If you want to use them all year round, you have to apply for a change of use to residential, and it isn't granted unless you can show that you've tried to let them and been unsuccessful. I presumed a holiday let was classed as a commerical use? That's certainly how Cornwall Council treats it.

As a planning professional, what I said was completely correct. I think you may be misunderstanding my point. Apologies if I'm not explaining it properly.

If someone wants to use their residential home as a holiday let, then they are free to do so - there is no change of use involved.

Court cases (e.g. R v. Tunbridge Wells BC ex p Blue Boys Development (1989) and Moore v. SSE (1998)) show that buildings used as holiday homes are to be regarded as dwellings, falling within Use Class C3. A holiday let is not therefore a commercial use falling within Use Classes B1, B2, B8, D1, D2 etc.

However, most of what Ivana says is correct - in most coastal and tourism hotspots (not just Cornwall) it is indeed common for people to be granted permission to convert outbuildings to holiday lets, with the planning permission stating that they are only to be used as holiday lets. Planning permission is required for this, as outbuildings are not independent dwellings, so they can't just be used for holiday lets without planning permission. This is done by way of a condition on the planning permission, restricting the occupancy to, say, 10 months max per year, or preventing any stays longer than 2 weeks.

Obviously then, if someone wanted to use it as their permanent dwelling, then they would need to apply for planning permission to remove this condition or apply to use it as an unrestricted dwelling. That scenario is fundamentally different to someone who has a dwelling (not an outbuilding) and then turns it into a holiday let (no planning permission needed). In that case, they can live there permanently if they choose or let it out as a holiday let - both residential uses and no change of use involved as, unlike the outbuilding scenario, it already has a lawful use as a dwelling.

In this case, it depends on what was originally granted planning permission - if the chalet has a restrictive condition meaning it can only be used as a holiday let, then the OP will need to apply for planning permission to have this removed. If there was no restrictive condition, i.e. if the chalet was originally a permanent dwelling and was just being used as a holiday let for a period of time, then no planning permission is needed to continue living there permanently.

Hope that makes sense!

planning_officer

Ivana_Tinkle wrote: »

I'm fairly sure this isn't correct. Here in Cornwall, it's very common for people to be granted permission to convert their outbuildings to holiday lets, but the planning permission is always very explicit that they are only to be used for holiday lets. If you want to use them all year round, you have to apply for a change of use to residential, and it isn't granted unless you can show that you've tried to let them and been unsuccessful. I presumed a holiday let was classed as a commerical use? That's certainly how Cornwall Council treats it.

Just as an addendum to my post above - in tourist areas where holiday accommodation is important for the local community and economy, then Councils do have restrictive policies to protect holiday accommodation. They don't want them all bought up as second homes, which can really stagnate communities and affect the tourism industry. The 'tests' you mention for a planning application are common to a lot of planning policies - loss of rural businesses, public houses, community facilities, agricultural workers' dwellings etc. In all those cases, an applicant will have to show that the existing use is no longer required, by way of some comprehensive marketing at the very least. It has nothing to do with being a commercial use - it's just an important use in that particular area that the Council is trying to protect. Chapter 11 of the Cornwall Local Plan (I've just been reading it!) says precisely this. Cornwall Council doesn't treat holiday lets as a commercial use; they are just trying to retain a certain type of residential use that has an important impact on the local tourism-related economy, which is perfectly understandable.

AllenMansurian

Well I think there should be some changes in holiday and try some unique experiences.

Itismehonest

planning_officer wrote: »

Just as an addendum to my post above - in tourist areas where holiday accommodation is important for the local community and economy, then Councils do have restrictive policies to protect holiday accommodation. They don't want them all bought up as second homes, which can really stagnate communities and affect the tourism industry. The 'tests' you mention for a planning application are common to a lot of planning policies - loss of rural businesses, public houses, community facilities, agricultural workers' dwellings etc. In all those cases, an applicant will have to show that the existing use is no longer required, by way of some comprehensive marketing at the very least. It has nothing to do with being a commercial use - it's just an important use in that particular area that the Council is trying to protect. Chapter 11 of the Cornwall Local Plan (I've just been reading it!) says precisely this. Cornwall Council doesn't treat holiday lets as a commercial use; they are just trying to retain a certain type of residential use that has an important impact on the local tourism-related economy, which is perfectly understandable.

It's a ridiculous situation, though, when they won't let the places be used as housing for locals in areas where accommodation is so desperately needed.

planning_officer

I can't speak from experience, as my authority is not in a coastal region, but there must be a fine line between providing houses for local people and maintaining the local tourist economy which is so important to people's livelihoods. After all, if many local people work in tourism, it would be silly to let all the holiday homes be used as dwellings as then ironically local people would have no need for the homes - they'd have to move away if there was no work.

By the way, this only applies to holiday homes that were converted from non-residential buildings and restricted by the planning permission to only be used as holiday lets. They would only normally be restricted if there was some planning objection to them being used as an independent dwelling. If someone uses their home as a holiday let, then of course they are free to return it to a permanent home at any point, as no planning permission is required.

planning_officer

AllenMansurian wrote: »

Well I think there should be some changes in holiday and try some unique experiences.

Hmm.... personally I find holidaying in this country more relaxing. Plus, I'd hate to be ignorant of areas of your own country just because you've always holidayed abroad...