Removing holiday let planning permission

Dillon141

Ozzuk said:

Dillon141 said:

Ozzuk said:

I did this a few years ago - turned a number of holiday lets into residential.  I don't know if process is the same now (this was Wales) but a few things:  you'd likely have to purchse the property with a commercial mortgage (though there are specialist holiday mortgages available now) typically with lower LTV (you need more deposit).  We even needed a business case.
We bought then applied for change of use to residential.  Our new neighbours supplied a letter of support (increased privacy/reduced traffic etc) but that probably didn't do much (but didn't hurt).  The council made us offer the property to the local community in case they wanted to take it on (they didn't) and we had to show figures that viability was reducing.
It went through, it was then a simple process to register the new house names with the post office.

Do you mind me asking if this was in North Wales?

What do you mean they made you offer the property to the local community? 

So you had to show that economically, as a business/holiday let it was not viable? That is, was not making enough money? Was this the case anyway or did you tweak things somehow to reduce bookings (for example charge more to scare some bookings off).

Thank you.

South Wales.  We had to get in touch with the local community council to see if they wanted to take it on (purchase it), no idea what the council had in mind, but some rule about not depriving the community.  I can't remember what we did with the figures, they were okay so perhaps we did 'massage' them.

Local community council? For me here, Would that be the County Council or the parish council of the village? 

Massaged them? Is that massage them as in just give lower figures to the Council to the figures you actually had bookings for in reality? OR massaged them as in just did not take on as much bookings as you could have and then plead “it’s unviable”. Lol

Thank you.

Dillon141

sheramber 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.
Will it not look just as  strange if someone is living in it permanently?

Compared to how it was - house and outbuilding. Outbuildings then were not as high and didn‘t not have a big slate roof originally. I’m just talking about the visuals here. Nothing else.

Dillon141

AdrianC said: the 

sheramber 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.
Will it not look just as  strange if someone is living in it permanently?

It looked that strange when it was all covered by one title...

What I meant was that originally it was a house and a smaller visual outbuilding compared to the outbuilding now being higher with a big slate roof. I’m purely talking about the visuals here, nothing else.

Dillon141

As an update, I’ve found out that the planning permission stipulated it had to be a holiday let only and that nobody can stay there for more than 28 days in a single calendar year. 

I’m not sure if this is good or bad for the prospect of removing the holiday let restriction compared to other holiday lets.

What I mean is, some holiday lets seem to have a restriction on some months of the year where the property is not allowed to be let out.

So what I’m asking is, is this something to think positively of, as far as my chances of removing the holiday let restriction to a dwelling? 

Thanks 

Davesnave

Dillon141 said:

As an update, I’ve found out that the planning permission stipulated it had to be a holiday let only and that nobody can stay there for more than 28 days in a single calendar year.

What is the exact wording? I think 28 days a year may refer to the maximum length of let to one party or individual, rather than the total time allowable for rental in a given year. No holiday let could make money based on a rental period of 28 days per annum!

Dillon141

Davesnave said:

Dillon141 said:

As an update, I’ve found out that the planning permission stipulated it had to be a holiday let only and that nobody can stay there for more than 28 days in a single calendar year.

What is the exact wording? I think 28 days a year may refer to the maximum length of let to one party or individual, rather than the total time allowable for rental in a given year. No holiday let could make money based on a rental period of 28 days per annum!

Yes, sorry! Lol. No ONE person can stay there for more than 28 days in a calendar year. 

carefullycautious

Are there any downsides to where it is or type of accommodation that would cause bad reviews which may affect its success as a holiday let? A few bad reviews and poor letting may just change future decisions re change of use. Not all holiday lets are successful

AdrianC

Dillon141 said:

Davesnave said:

Dillon141 said:

As an update, I’ve found out that the planning permission stipulated it had to be a holiday let only and that nobody can stay there for more than 28 days in a single calendar year.

What is the exact wording? I think 28 days a year may refer to the maximum length of let to one party or individual, rather than the total time allowable for rental in a given year. No holiday let could make money based on a rental period of 28 days per annum!

Yes, sorry! Lol. No ONE person can stay there for more than 28 days in a calendar year. 

And no cap on the total occupation through the year?

So that removes the "But I'm on holiday here... I just liked it so much I've stayed for - GOSH, really? Three years already?"

A farm near to me has two "holiday accomodation" units in a converted barn. The full planning docs aren't available online, but the heading for the apps is "ancillary accomodation", and they certainly have longer-term occupants - I know of several people who've stayed three or four months, using it as their only residence.

Dillon141

carefullycautious said:

Are there any downsides to where it is or type of accommodation that would cause bad reviews which may affect its success as a holiday let? A few bad reviews and poor letting may just change future decisions re change of use. Not all holiday lets are successful

The reviews are good, but the figures for the holiday let are not that impressive (I can’t tell you how I got a hold of these figures).

I think destination wise it is a bit central, what I mean by that is its not in the hotspots regarding tourism on Anglesey. It’s away from them all and maybe that explains the figures? The property is nicely finished but maybe cannot command the £1500+ per week that the holiday hotspots can. Maybe £1000 a week for a few weeks in peak season. It serves as a good base if you don’t mind travelling to the tourism hotspots.

But Winter time and out of peak season it would probably not be high on the holiday let destinations for most people.

Dillon141

AdrianC said:

Dillon141 said:

Davesnave said:

Dillon141 said:

As an update, I’ve found out that the planning permission stipulated it had to be a holiday let only and that nobody can stay there for more than 28 days in a single calendar year.

What is the exact wording? I think 28 days a year may refer to the maximum length of let to one party or individual, rather than the total time allowable for rental in a given year. No holiday let could make money based on a rental period of 28 days per annum!

Yes, sorry! Lol. No ONE person can stay there for more than 28 days in a calendar year. 

And no cap on the total occupation through the year?

So that removes the "But I'm on holiday here... I just liked it so much I've stayed for - GOSH, really? Three years already?"

A farm near to me has two "holiday accomodation" units in a converted barn. The full planning docs aren't available online, but the heading for the apps is "ancillary accomodation", and they certainly have longer-term occupants - I know of several people who've stayed three or four months, using it as their only residence.

It says no one person can stay for more than 28 days in one calendar year. BUT it does not say that nobody can stay there in certain months- so you can let it out throughout the year.

Not sure where this leaves me .... easier or harder to remove condition?