Plan to allow holiday homes near Morpeth to become permanent residences rejected by Northumberland councillors

The cottages, which form part of the holiday park at Morpeth Caravan Site in Longhirst, are currently restricted to holiday use only due to the previous planning permission.

Applicant Glen Fahy had insisted that he intended to continue running the buildings as holiday cottages, but the change in use would allow him to expand the ‘only marginally profitable’ business.

Planning documents explained the only way to fund further development would be to borrow against the cottages themselves. Currently, lenders are refusing to do so because of the restriction to holiday use.

Documents also state the change would allow the owners to rent the properties out during the winter when there are fewer holidaymakers.

They add that it is hoped the four units would be inherited as homes for the applicant’s four children, allowing them to stay in the village and reduce the pressure on local housing needs.

However, council planners said the application should be refused, arguing it would allow unrestricted residential development within the open countryside while also reducing tourism provision.

Speaking at a meeting of the Castle Morpeth Local Area Planning Committee, Mr Fahy said: “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.”

Pegswood ward councillor David Towns, who is the local councillor for Longhirst, backed Mr Fahy.

He said: “They (Mr Fahy and his wife) have profits of between £13,000 and £19,000 for running three holiday cottages. 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.”

Despite this, Coun Richard Dodd proposed refusal. He did add: “I would like to think that the door is left open in turning this down and progress can be made.”

The application was rejected by four votes to two, with two abstentions.