A Tenby woman has won her appeal against the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority's controversial 'local needs' development policy.

As part of the draft Joint Unitary Development Plan, the Park, in a bid to preserve land available, have included a policy against new housing development unless for 'local' or 'essential' need.

Although the JUDP is currently in the consultation stage and has yet to be adopted, Park planners turned down a request by Mrs. Lynn Delabatouche to convert the Sherbourne guest house in Tenby's Sutton Street to two flats while retaining a ground floor maisonette.

They did so on the grounds that, as Mrs. Delabatouche would not sign an agreement stating that the flats would only be made available to those with 'local' or 'essential' need, it was contrary to this emerging policy.

However, Welsh Assembly planning inspector, John D. Wallis, has upheld Mrs. Delabatouche's appeal and awarded her costs against the National Park.

The building, while originally a single dwelling, had historically been rearranged into three self-contained flats prior to conversion into a guest house in 1975.

Mrs. Delabatouche and her late husband had run the property since 1989, but now widowed, she was finding it difficult to operate as a guest house and planned to convert it back to flats, with her living in the ground floor maisonette.

Mr. Wallis pointed out that Park planning officers had no objections in principle to the conversion of the upper floors of the guest house into flats.

However, they felt that approval would have undermined the emerging JUDP, could set a precedent and would further reduce the amount of available housing land for local or essential need.

Mrs. Delabatouche argued that the flats were too small to have any significant impact on local housing policy and that it would not be creating a precedent as it was in accordance with park policy regarding change of use.

Mr. Wallis said refusal of an application on the grounds of prematurity in relation to an emerging JUDP policy may be justified where a "proposal would have a significant impact on an important settlement," but not if it "impacted on only a small area."

"Refusal on prematurity grounds will seldom be justified where a plan is at the pre-deposit consultation stage, " he stated.

It was unlikely that the JUDP would be adopted before the end of 2004 and, given the large number of written representations about the 'local need' policy, it seemed to Mr. Wallis that, while the aims of the policy were widely supported, its 'mechanics' were being widely challenged.

While he would not comment on the policy, in the light of these representations, he could not assume that the Plan was likely to be adopted as drafted.

Mr. Wallis felt that the draft policy was limited and "did not have the status of adopted policy."

He felt that there were no convincing reasons when the limited re-development proposed could be exploited by others as a precedent, nor was there evidence to show that it would pre-determine decisions about the scale, location or phasing of other development in the south-east coast community.

Because it impacted on only a small area, there would be "no perceptible impact" on the local street scene and Mr. Wallis agreed with Mrs. Delabatouche that a refusal on the grounds of prematurity was "wholly unjustified."

Mr. Wallis felt that adopted policy carried more weight than a "controversial draft policy which has yet to be tested at a Local Plan Inquiry and may not survive intact."

He also felt that without the benefit of an up-to-date survey to show what housing provision was required to meet local needs, there could be "no informed conclusion about the effect of these flats on those who may need or wish to live within the sustainable community."

Mr. Wallis added that he had also taken into account the Welsh Assembly's objections to the emerging policy on the grounds that policies specifically to meet local needs "are acceptable only if they relate to affordable housing" and Government advice that "locals only controls are generally legally questionable and difficult to enforce."

For these reasons he allowed the appeal.

Mr. Wallis also awarded costs against the National Park for what he felt was "unreasonable behaviour" in refusing the application in the first place.

He said their reliance on emerging policy "flies in the face of national planning guidance" and that the Park had acted unreasonably by refusing permission for development which "accords with the development plan and when there are no valid or justified material considerations to indicate otherwise."

Mr. Wallis did not accept that Mrs. Delabatouche should have to wait for the outcome of the JUDP consultation and inquiry when there was "no substantive evidence to show that the development of two residential units close to the heart of the town centre would create a serious precedent."

"It does not follow that to allow the appeal would create a demand for local needs housing on green-field sites elsewhere," commented Mr. Wallis. "Given its coastal location, lack of off-street parking and minimal external amenity space, it is much more likely to attract the retired elderly who value easy access on foot to local facilities and services.

"Whilst it may technically amount to new residential development, it is, in reality, merely the restoration of a former private dwelling which has previously been used as a guest house," he added.

Mr. Wallis therefore felt that the "unreasonable behaviour" of the Park Authority had resulted in "unnecessary expenditure" in Mrs. Delabatouche having to take the matter to appeal and felt an award of full costs was justified.