Gwynedd campaigners fighting against Article 4 will once again ask the High Court for a judicial review.
Article 4 means property owners will need planning permission for second homes.
A High Court judge has refused the anti-Article 4 campaigners’ request for a judicial review of the decision, but say the fight goes on.
Gwynedd Council is the first local authority to introduce the regulation, known as an Article 4 Direction, to tackle what it describes as a "huge housing crisis".
.png?width=209&height=140&crop=209:145,smart&quality=75)
A Gwynedd spokesperson said: "We are aware of the High Court's decision to refuse the right to apply for judicial review in relation to Article 4,” adding that research shows over 65 per cent of the Gwynedd population is priced out of the housing market, with that percentage increasing significantly in areas where there is a higher number of holiday homes.
That is why, the council say, that following a detailed process, including public engagement, they have introduced an Article 4 Direction to manage the use of houses as second homes and short-term holiday lets in the Gwynedd Planning Authority Area.
The main purpose of the Article 4 Direction is to bring more of the housing stock back into use as main homes use to meet the needs of local people.
Since 1 September planning permission has been required to change the use of a main residence to a short-term holiday accommodation use or second home.
Despite the High Court setback, campaigners against this ruling have not given up the fight.
On the group’s social media page, called People of Gwynedd Against Article 4, a spokesperson said their legal team “have been considering the merits of an “appeal” of the judge’s decision to refuse permission for the Judicial Review to be brought by the Claimant.
“We have been using the term “appeal” as it is a widely understood term, however it is not technically an appeal, it is a renewal of the application for permission, which essentially asks the court to re-consider the application for permission, upon receipt of further submissions by the barrister.
“The claimant’s legal team have advised that there is merit in renewing the application, so that request has now been lodged with the court.
The costs associated with this renewed application for permission were included within our calculations for the stage 2 funding, so we have the funds available from the stage 2 fund to meet the costs of this application.”