.jpg)
A bid to make three Northumberland holiday cottages available as permanent private residences has been rejected by planners.
At a time when many elements of the private rental sector are being blamed for allowing short lets and holiday accommodation to diminish the stock of permanent homes, the planners at Northumberland council ironically have refused consent for the change of use - because it would reduce tourist amenities.
The Northumberland Gazette reports that the cottages in question form part of the Morpeth Caravan Site which is currently restricted to holiday use only in line with a previous planning permission.
Now applicant Glen Fahy wants the option to have the homes designated as permanent homes - at least potentially, even if they remain in use as holiday lets.
Fahy has told the council the his current holiday let business was “only marginally profitable” and that getting consent for the three cottages’ use as permanent homes would unlock potential borrowing. Currently, lenders are refusing to do so because of the restriction to holiday use.
The Gazette reports that Fahy told the local planning committee: “The site is, and has always been, a brownfield site. It is outside the greenbelt in the Northumberland Local Plan. It is our only source of income. The cottages are built on land attached to our own garden, and we have no intention of selling them off for a profit.”
Only two out of eight councillors on the committee supported the change - one of those two told colleagues that Fahy had only £13,000 to £19,000 income a year for running three holiday cottages.
The councillor added: “I think that is below viable. These have been there a long time, it’s not a clever ruse there has been a genuine attempt to make them work. I have a lot of sympathy for them, it’s effectively making them do a lot of work for less than minimum wage.”
You can see the Gaxette story here.
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.jpg)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Showing their true colours is anyone surprised by anything these councils do
The politics of envy. Most of these councillors could not run a bath but they think and the do have the powers to destroy any landlord or indeed any person who shows an ounce of inspiration..one of the main reasons I have never voted for any of these muppets for over 30 years
Next week the council will be attacking Air BnB because people need homes, not holiday lets! 😂😂😂
Seems a bit odd, but I guess they don't want to set a precedent for turning other holiday homes into permanent homes, perhaps as many are not constructed to the same standard?
In my experience, short term rental properties are usually a higher standard than long-term rental properties as the customers demand more. These are cottages, not static caravans.
Given the direction of travel is usually in the opposite direction, it looks as if there's insufficient demand for these three cottages to to generate more income as short term rentals than they would as long term rentals.
Empty properties don't generate any revenue other than Council Tax, whereas allowing long term tenants would generate trade for local businesses 52 weeks a year as well as providing 3 much needed long term homes.
Perhaps Shelter could help? Oh, I forgot, they do nothing to provide homes especially if it means helping landlords!
I think this businessman should get the local and national press involved, especially in an election year.
Yet another show of defiance from councils towards landlords, I’m sure as it reads these guys are genuinely trying to make a living and be profitable so they can afford the upkeep - not a chance in hell …..
It seems that the owner wishes to change to permanent to make more profits and be able to mortgage the properties. The council do not wish to change these properties to permanent private residences even though they will benefit the growing number of tenants. It is a good example of councils hate towards the landlord making better profits even when there is probably more demand for permanent homes for the tenants. Do we need such councils at all. Councils should be people who can see and listen and work for the good of the community not have their own agenda.
In general Councillors are “Parking warden” mentality busy bodies.
Councils ' default answer is NO!
short sighted councils, 15 yrs ago i wanted to build flats on a brown field site in central Norwich in a mainly social housing area, planning deptment's a big fat NO, wouldn't even talk about it, after all I might have made some money out of it which clearly was their reason for the NO, so I sold the site to a local engineering company who have put a huge metal workshop on it, these people are eaten up with envy of others making a profit. Norwich city council left wing labour / greens there's your answer
This just proves that LL's can't win. Damed if they do and damned if they don't.
Please login to comment