Seaside landladies are in the business as much for love as for money. At least according to a new court ruling that will send a shockwave of concern throughout the seaside small hotel and guesthouse industry nationwide.
The High Court has backed claims by Eastbourne Council that a couple who ran a guesthouse at the resort were not entitled to planning consent to turn the premises back to residential use even though they claimed use as a guest house was no longer economical.
The court has ruled that despite a fall off in profits, Bryan and Patricia Batey were not entitled to get out of the business in the way they wished by turning the property into a private home, and it backed Eastbourne Councils view that those who run guesthouses should be made to stick at it, apart from anything else, on the basis that the council says they prefer other benefits of the job – living in picturesque areas, being their own bosses, and providing a service to others. The court allowed an appeal by the council against an environment inspectors ruling that they were entitled to change the use of the premises.
The Bateys decided to leave the business they ran for 15 years around two years ago because of unsatisfactory profits and the fact that Mrs Batey had developed lung cancer. Mrs Batey, in fact, died yesterday.
Mr Batey, now of 35 Peppercombe Road, Eastbourne, who has since sold the South Cliff guesthouse at 19 South Cliff Avenue, Eastbourne, said today: “Frankly the whole situation is incredible. I find the attitude of the council impossible to believe. To take the view that people like us are in business because we like it rather than to make money is ludicrous.”
Mr Batey, who says the dispute cost him and his wife £7,500 in legal fees and consultations with experts, said that even when the council was told of the additional need for the couple to leave the business because Mrs Batey was terminally ill, it remained hardhearted.
“They just did not want to know. They told us that this was not a planning consideration,” he said.
The High Court, in backing refusal by the council for the guesthouse to be converted into a private home, is seen as sending out a message to all in the business that they have made their guesthouse beds, and despite the fact their profits have dropped, the chances are they are going to have to lie in them.
Initially, when the Bateys challenged the councils refusal for them to change the use of their premises, an environment inspector found in their favour. He took the view they were unlikely to be able to achieve an economic return of 15%.
But in court the council argued that the inspector was wrong to take that view. It claimed that many of those who run guesthouses, while they may not achieve a 15% rate of return, carry on in the business because they prefer the other benefits of the job.
And Craig Howell Williams, counsel for Eastbourne Council, told Keene J in the High Court there was a high demand for holiday accommodation in the South Cliff Avenue area of Eastbourne, which is in the Intermediate Tourist Accommodation area. He said that a relatively short supply of guesthouses indicated that the Bateys property had a healthy continuing future as a guesthouse.
He said that the premises could even be converted into self catering holiday accommodation, which could offer a greater and more predictable return than a guesthouse.
James Maurici, counsel for the DETR, argued that the local authority had acted unreasonably in seeking to interpret financial viability differently from the expert chartered accountants employed by them and by accepting a lesser measure of viability.
However, backing the council, the judge said he considered that the inspector in reaching his decision had not adequately taken into account the willingness of guesthouse owners to accept a lower rate of return than the commercial norm.
Mr Batey said: “We were penalised because we tried to do things the right way. A lot of guest houses in Eastbourne and elsewhere have just closed down and gone back to residential use without anyone ever seeking planning consent. Effectively the use has been changed illegally but noone has said a thing.
“We tried to do things the right way and sought planning consent, and effectively the council decided it was time to bolt the stable door. We were the ones they bolted it on. Nothing would change the councils mind, not even the fact my wife was dying with cancer.
“And this approach of the council in saying that people who run guest houses are prepared to accept lower profits to be their own bosses, and to live in nice areas and to provide a service to others is ridiculous. Obviously they are features of the business, but you cannot run a business without sufficient profit. That is why we decided we wanted to leave – because the profit was insufficient, coupled with my wifes illness.
“I think that this decision is going to have wide implications within the small hotel and guest house industry throughout the country.”
Eastbourne Borough Council v SSETR Queens Bench Division: Administrative Court (Keene J) 9 October 2000
Craig Howell Williams (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the applicant; James Maurici (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendants.
PLS News 11/10/00
