Removing holiday let planning permission

Dillon141

AdrianC said:

I'm not sure why it would matter whether the holiday let is owned/managed by the house next door or somebody else nearby.

The holiday let itself is exactly what it was when permission was granted. No more, no less. It's that property, next to that property. Whether the two properties are in the same ownership or not doesn't affect the "visuals".

Thank you for your reply. What I meant is that locally it’s always been one “place” and now of course it isn’t. Looks strange to us locals is what I meant.

Dillon141

Would the fact that the outbuildings, many many years ago, were actually the house. Then some time over the last century another house was built and since then that has been the main house and the ex-main house of the property were just treated as outbuildings.

Would it make any difference that in fact the outbuildings were the house at one time, and a dwelling. 

AdrianC

Dillon141 said:
What I meant is that locally it’s always been one “place” and now of course it isn’t. Looks strange to us locals is what I meant.

But how does the differing ownerships between the two properties change that? Simply division of the plot?

That could have happened while it was in one ownership, of course, to provide privacy between the owners and guests. No PP is needed for fences/hedges/boundaries below 2m.

"We don't like that it doesn't look like it used to" is not grounds for objecting to the continuation of a situation that's been established for four years after PP was granted. Unless that PP included a requirement not to place any boundaries within the plot, I think you're out of luck.

frogglet

Have you looked at the planning application to see what restrictions were applied.
I know some houses who convert garages into "granny bungalows" have restrictions such as they can never be registered as a single dwelling. 
The plans are usually available to view online free of charge.

davidmcn

Dillon141 said:

Would the fact that the outbuildings, many many years ago, were actually the house. Then some time over the last century another house was built and since then that has been the main house and the ex-main house of the property were just treated as outbuildings.

Would it make any difference that in fact the outbuildings were the house at one time, and a dwelling. 

No, that wouldn't make a difference.

If you want to know more about the reasons for why the use was restricted to a holiday home, have a look at the planning papers (which will probably be available on the council's website) and any relevant policy issued by the planners.

The reasons are often things like holiday homes don't lead to as much pressure on council services (only permanent residents are likely to take up school places, use social care, etc). Also you sometimes get relaxation of "habitability" conditions (on the basis holidaymakers might be prepared to "rough it" a bit), so things like minimum light / privacy / garden space might be different from a permanent dwelling.

Dillon141

AdrianC said:

Dillon141 said:
What I meant is that locally it’s always been one “place” and now of course it isn’t. Looks strange to us locals is what I meant.

But how does the differing ownerships between the two properties change that? Simply division of the plot?

That could have happened while it was in one ownership, of course, to provide privacy between the owners and guests. No PP is needed for fences/hedges/boundaries below 2m.

"We don't like that it doesn't look like it used to" is not grounds for objecting to the continuation of a situation that's been established for four years after PP was granted. Unless that PP included a requirement not to place any boundaries within the plot, I think you're out of luck.

I think there has been cross-wires here somewhere. Lol. I wasn’t making the point that as it “looks different to what it used to” it should make any impact on the planning permission, it was merely making an observational comment. 

AdrianC

No, I don't think there has been.

The sole objection that you appear to have given against it continuing as a holiday let is...

Dillon141 said:

What I meant with strange is that it looks odd as the house and outbuildings are set away from the road as one resident and to us locally now it looks strange that two houses exist there. I understand when the original owners converted it it made sense but seems strange to sell them apart- visually if not legally. Lol.

...and...

Dillon141 said:

Thank you for your reply. What I meant is that locally it’s always been one “place” and now of course it isn’t. Looks strange to us locals is what I meant.

I'm not sure how else to precis those...?

"I'd like to buy it to live there" is not a good enough reason on its own, and more than it would be a factor in any other similar restriction - a local or an agricultural tie, or not meeting the criteria for an affordable property.

The thick end of a decade ago, we looked at a property that had a former house built into barns, now derelict. It had a restriction to ONLY be used as ancillary property to the main dwelling, which actively prevented it being used as a holiday let... and also from being sold separately. If it was rebuilt, it could only have been used as a "granny annex" for members of the family in occupation in the main house. "But Mr X wants to buy it and live there" wouldn't have worked there, either.
Looking online, I can see that retrospective permission to refurbish and convert that outbuilding was granted a couple of years ago - and that restriction was reaffirmed...
From the planning decision...
"The ancillary accommodation and the dwelling known as XXX shall not be sold or let separately from each other.
The use hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as XXX."

Dillon141

frogglet said:

Have you looked at the planning application to see what restrictions were applied.
I know some houses who convert garages into "granny bungalows" have restrictions such as they can never be registered as a single dwelling. 
The plans are usually available to view online free of charge.

I have asked the council for all the info as I can’t seem to find them online. I can see the planning application but there are no documents to download. 

Dillon141

So basically from all that has been said on this thread..... I have no chance! Haha. 

Ah well, I can ask the question of the council I guess, then I’ll have my answer and move on! 

Dillon141

AdrianC said:

No, I don't think there has been.

The sole objection that you appear to have given against it continuing as a holiday let is...

Dillon141 said:

What I meant with strange is that it looks odd as the house and outbuildings are set away from the road as one resident and to us locally now it looks strange that two houses exist there. I understand when the original owners converted it it made sense but seems strange to sell them apart- visually if not legally. Lol.

...and...

Dillon141 said:

Thank you for your reply. What I meant is that locally it’s always been one “place” and now of course it isn’t. Looks strange to us locals is what I meant.

I'm not sure how else to precis those...?

"I'd like to buy it to live there" is not a good enough reason on its own, and more than it would be a factor in any other similar restriction - a local or an agricultural tie, or not meeting the criteria for an affordable property.

The thick end of a decade ago, we looked at a property that had a former house built into barns, now derelict. It had a restriction to ONLY be used as ancillary property to the main dwelling, which actively prevented it being used as a holiday let... and also from being sold separately. If it was rebuilt, it could only have been used as a "granny annex" for members of the family in occupation in the main house. "But Mr X wants to buy it and live there" wouldn't have worked there, either.
Looking online, I can see that retrospective permission to refurbish and convert that outbuilding was granted a couple of years ago - and that restriction was reaffirmed...
From the planning decision...
"The ancillary accommodation and the dwelling known as XXX shall not be sold or let separately from each other.
The use hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as XXX."

Yes as I said, “visually not legally”, and “looks strange to us locals”.

Thank you for your knowledge. I appreciate your comments.

If “Mr X wants to live there” is not a good enough reason for the council to change the use of this property to a dwelling, what exactly are the reasons that may influence them then? 

I’m assuming that some “holiday let only” properties have actually been granted permission to change the use to a dwelling? What exactly would cause them to change the use then? Any ideas?

Thanks.