| 1. | It is considered that 90 days occupancy should be considered akin to a residential use, and is likely to be used for residential occupancy, whether or not as a principal or main residential address (which Condition 4 of the permission 06/21/0914/F prohibits). The use of such extended duration of stays would on one hand enable a degree of 'year-round, sustainable tourism' as sought by policy GY6 criteria (A), but the benefits of tourism spend are much less as duration of occupation extends, which reduces the genuine tourism benefits that are introduced through shorter-term occupation and the investment brought to other businesses and social vibrancy offered by having short-stay accommodation. With prolonged occupation there would be fewer tourism visits overall, contrary to the aim of policy GY6(A), and there would be less tourism spend pro rata per capita and so there would be by consequence less investment in major new tourism, leisure and entertainment facilities in this Seafront Area, contrary to policy GY6(B), because there would be fewer visitors to utilise such facilities. Given that the use of the units becomes more residential in nature, there are increased concerns that the existing tourism use would be changed to a more non-tourism use, contrary to policy GY6(C). Given the foregoing concerns, the proposal would be contrary to adopted Local Plan Part 2 policy GY6 overall.
In view of the lack of any evidence to support the application, and the expected requirement for an HMO licence to be issued for stays of 90 days, in an area where HMOs would not be permitted by policy GY6, and on the basis that the existing Condition 5 of permission 06/21/0941/F provides flexibility for a period of stay beyond 28 days upon request to the Local Planning Authority and its agreement in writing, the application is refused permission as the proposal would be contrary to Policy GY6 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 adopted 2021. |
