Penrhos Coastal Park Consent Upheld

We acted for a local resident in a challenge to the grant of outline planning consent for a large holiday village near Holyhead, North Wales. The park would comprise approximately 500 chalets, shops, restaurants, and other amenities to service holidaymakers. In 2021 development began at a dilapidated building on the site known as the Bailiff’s Tower which became the focal point of the claim.

Outline planning permission had been granted in April 2016. Supplementing the decision was a series of conditions. Condition 70 required the Bailiff’s Tower to be changed from a cricket pavilion to a visitors information center within five years for the permission to be implemented as a whole (i.e. by April 2021).

Just before the deadline the developer purported to change the use at the Bailiff’s Tower. Carpets had been removed, furniture placed upstairs, and walls painted. But despite that work, the building was not ready to welcome visitors. Only perfunctory work had been done and more was required for it to be ready for visitors. It is also relevant to note that Covid regulations in force at the time prohibited visitors gathering in public. Despite all this, the local planning authority considered that what the developers had done was enough to constitute a change of use. Condition 70, in their judgment, has been complied with and the wider scheme could be built out, and the outline permission implemented before the deadline. Time marched on. In September 2023, the local planning authority approved various applications made pursuant to the 2016 outline consent. These approvals were predicated on condition 70 having been satisfied.

Our client challenged the 2023 consents, contending that the use of the Bailiff’s Tower had not changed. What little work had been done in 2021 fell well short of what was needed to effect the new use and, even if the work was sufficient, any use of the visitors centre would have been unlawful due to the Covid regulations. The permission had therefore expired, and the holiday park could not be developed. The Claimant argued that:

1. When the local planning authority’s planning committee considered the 2023 applications, they had been misled by the advice given in by planning officers. Instead of being advised to consider and compare the use of the Bailiff’s Tower before and after the expiry date, the committee had been asked to decide whether or not the developer had done all that could be done to bring about the change of use from cricket pavilion to visitor centre. That was the wrong legal test.
2. Furthermore, the authority had acted unlawfully in refusing to consider possible enforcement action give the expiry of the change of use meant the Defendant was not empowered to grant approvals.

Despite being granted permission at a renewal hearing, the claim was ultimately refused. Advice given to the committee was lawful as the decision-maker was entitled to take into account both the physical state of the building and its “actual use or intended use or attempted use.” Our clients filed an application for permission to appeal which was also refused.

Ben Fullbrook of Landmark Chambers was instructed as counsel.