The appeal site was located outside a village settlement boundary but formed part of a linear development of existing residences and commercial uses. Firstly, the inspector considered that because the original permission for the holiday lets did not restrict occupation or create seasonal occupation, it effectively allowed a year-round use of the building as dwellings meaning there was little material difference in the planning character of the dwelling whether it was as a holiday let or as a person’s sole or main place of residence. In addition, despite acknowledging the proposal would not strictly comply with the council’s more recently adopted housing location polices because the property did not directly adjoin the settlement boundary, the inspector could identify no harm arising from the proposal because the building was already in existence and there were no changes proposed to it, it was not isolated and had easy access to existing facilities. Although the inspector accepted that for all practical purposes the majority of journeys to and from the appeal site might be made by car, they felt this would be the case regardless of whether it was occupied on a short-term or a permanent basis. The inspector considered the proposal complied with the development plan as a whole and allowed the appeal.
Inspector: M L Milliken; Written representations