Appeal 6000996

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on users of nearby properties with regard to noise and disturbance.

The property consists of a large dwelling, in extensive grounds, in the countryside. To the rear, it has a large swimming pool building and an enclosed patio area that includes a range of other structures including a sauna and hot tub. Adjacent to the front garden of the house is a residential property and close to the rear garden and patio area is a manège associated with neighbouring [name]. There is a garden room and a caravan situated in the rear garden but these are not shown on the plans and no reference to them is made by the appellant.

The planning statement advises that the property would be used exclusively as short-stay accommodation for a maximum of 23 people catering to visitors, professionals and tourists. It advises that there would be a clear guest code of conduct and the use would be actively monitored with emergency contact details made available. The appellant is of the view that the reason for refusal, which relates to noise and disturbance, is not supported by any robust evidence and that the council have essentially overreacted to a vociferous local objector. It is stated that the property typically caters for groups of around 15, made up of large families or groups of friends.

It is confirmed that the use of the property for short term rentals started in 2022. It is also accepted by the appellant that a change of use to a sui generis use has occurred. I have not altered the description to that suggested by the council as there is no evidence that the appellant agreed to such a change. It is not clear Appeal Decision: 6000996 whether a material change of use occurred in 2022 or at a later date. It is clear that most of the recorded concerns are from 2025.

The appellant advises that the amenity areas of the house are either fully enclosed (swimming pool and sauna) or partially enclosed by high boundary walls and dense, mature vegetation; and that the opportunities for noise to travel from the site to neighbouring land are therefore extremely limited.

The appellant suggests that there have only been three complaints about noise and on all occasions the matter was investigated, no issues were witnessed and the cases were closed. It is claimed that this does not illustrate that this is a use that has created regular and unacceptable levels of noise. The appellant also advises that cameras are in place which provide visual and audio recording of the external spaces; and guests are instructed to limit noise outside. If the appellant becomes aware of noise at the site, either via cameras or from concerned residents, they would immediately contact guests and ask them to reduce the noise. The appellant advises that this has never been necessary.

No evidence of the type of advertising used for the property has been provided by the appellant or any other party. Third parties have made reference to web sites advertising the property as a party house since 2022 and advise that it has attracted many hen and stag parties. The council’s Environmental Health Officer has also advised that the property is being publicly advertised on different sites as being a ‘[address] - [name] & Sauna’. The appellant has not commented on this information.

The council’s Regulation & Enforcement section has provided details of complaints lodged with their service. The first was in October 2022 with a complaint of all night parties on weekends. Letters were sent requesting that the allegations be addressed and that monitoring would take place. A further complaint was received on 17 October 2022 but the case was closed, following monitoring, due to insufficient evidence. A complaint was then received on 11 April 2023 alleging noise and loud music on a Friday and Saturday. These are the only concerns referenced before 2025.

Two complaints were received during May 2025 and included a diary that listed five dates when music and noise had resulted in the outside arena of the neighbouring equestrian centre not being able to be used because of the noise and activities. The council’s Out of [name] visited the site on numerous occasions but on most visits there was no activity or no excessive noise reported. However, on the evening of 13 June the officer witnessed male voices singing and shouting intermittently, described as fairly loud and boisterous. On 12 July an audio recording was provided of music and shouting and the officer could hear from the road music being played from within the property and people talking loudly. On the 18 July a number of recordings were provided which included shouting, swearing and music from a male group. The council visited the vicinity of the property on two occasions that day but the noise was not, at those times, considered to be excessive. On 25 July officers experienced loud music followed by lots of females screaming and laughing. The noise was considered extreme and was considered to constitute a statutory nuisance. Appeal Decision: 6000996

The council served an abatement notice on 30 July. This was later withdrawn due to what the council describe as technical deficiencies with the notice. On 19 September officers attended in the evening when there was a large number of people, described as 30-40, in the front garden shouting and screaming. Later a trumpet played and after that ended there was further shouting and screaming. The officer described that the noise was causing an adverse effect on the horses at the neighbouring property. Two further reports of screaming, shouting and loud music were reported in October 2025. The council has also listed six incidents recorded by the police although no information has been provided as to the outcome of these incidents.

There appears to have been many occasions when officers have visited the property’s surrounds and on multiple occasions there has not been any activity; or the noise has not been considered to be excessive. I also note the comments of two users of the nearby fields who advise that they have not had any issues with the property when with their horses. The resident of the neighbouring residential property advises that he has never had a problem with noise or nuisance since 2022 and does not want to lodge a complaint. I am also aware however, that when an officer inadvertently visited that property, the neighbouring noise was described as being of a loud and intrusive nature.

[name] note the appellant’s concerns about the many representations made by third parties, with some living a significant distance away, I am particularly concerned that the report of the council’s Regulation & Enforcement section has not been addressed in any detail. There appears to be in the region of about twenty instances whereby noise has been either reported or experienced. On a handful of occasions, the officer experienced noise from the property but did not consider it to be excessive or unreasonable. On one of those occasions the noise was experienced from the road which is some distance from the house. On four occasions noise was found to be more than would be expected. A number of audio recordings have been provided to the council, covering several dates, although no analysis of these has been provided.

It is unclear what communications the council have had with the appellant other than the first instance when the council wrote to the appellant in October 2022 and then secondly, when issuing an [name] in July 2025. The council describe that after three years of letting and periodic intervention by the council, the hosts cannot be seen to have controlled the use of the property and unacceptable behaviour is still occurring.

The appellant has not made any reference to any contact with the council in the supporting evidence or statements with regard to noise. The only contact mentioned relates to June 2025 when the council advised that planning permission was required for a change of use. It is stated that the council were asked to provide a list of noise complaints. The only list before me is the report from the council’s Regulation & Enforcement section that forms part of the appeal documents. The evidence from the appellant does not fully acknowledge the concerns raised, particularly in 2025.

The appellant states that if there was a genuine and persistent noise issue, then there should be a record of regular complaints over the last three years and that this record does not exist. The schedule of complaints in 2025 does represent a record of regular complaints with issues reported relating to 19 different days. No Appeal Decision: 6000996 reference to the size or types of groups has been made by the appellant to correspond with the complaints referenced. Although the council have sought to be proactive in providing unannounced monitoring visits, the fact that they have only experienced excessive noise on three occasions does not indicate that the events did not occur.

When considering noise complaints, the council’s considerations often relate to what would constitute a statutory nuisance. From a planning perspective, the issue is how much more noise and disturbance would be experienced in comparison to the lawful use of the property. It is not clear if the noise experienced on the times when the council found the levels not to be excessive or unreasonable was significantly greater than that which would be expected from a large family house. However, the events listed do not reflect the suggestion made by the appellant that there were only three complaints about noise and on all occasions the matter was investigated and no issues were witnessed. The serving of an abatement notice, although later withdrawn, similarly does not align with the appellant’s view.

It is only possible to assess the proposal on the information submitted. The boundary between the patio area and the manège would not be likely to offer significant noise reduction and it is that area that is likely to provide the greatest levels of noise, particularly on warm days and evenings. Whilst many guests would no doubt respect the environment, renting to very large groups, would inevitably increase the potential for noise and limit the potential for controlling it. Based on the information submitted, it is apparent that the activities at the site have resulted in a level of noise and disturbance, particularly since April 2025, that has gone far beyond that which could reasonably be expected from a large family dwelling.

Whilst the reported concerns relate to an equestrian centre rather than a dwelling, from the information provided, it is clear that the amenities of those using that facility have been materially harmed on a number of occasions. Whilst the neighbouring resident has not objected, the impact on that property, in the longer term, must be considered. Although the patio area is set away from the neighbouring dwelling, I am not persuaded that the use would not result in significant concerns for future residents of that property with regard to noise and disturbance.

The continued use of this property for large groups, for very short term lets, would therefore be likely to continue to result in unacceptable harm to the amenities of users of the neighbouring properties.

It has been suggested that any potential future harm could be adequately mitigated by conditions. It is stated that the appellant already closely monitors noise and outdoor activity at the site. Cameras are in place which provide visual and audio recording of the external spaces and guests are instructed, upon booking or arrival, to limit noise outside. It is not evident that these measures have been a success.

The appellant has submitted a Noise Management Plan with an attached Example Site Noise Management Policy as part of the appeal documents. This was not submitted with the application and therefore was not considered during the application process. The generality of its contents and the measures suggested by the appellant in the appeal statement, can however be considered as a basis for Appeal Decision: 6000996 imposing conditions, including a requirement for the submission of a Noise Management Policy, that would need to be agreed with the council.

A reduction in the maximum number of residents to fifteen and a limit of 90 days occupancy per year has been suggested by the appellant, if thought necessary. Given the lack of information provided regarding the numbers present when concerns have been raised, it is difficult to arrive at an informed judgement with regard to any correlation between group sizes, group types and levels of disturbance experienced. Noise levels would appear to be group specific, given that some groups do not appear to have caused concerns. However, it may be reasonable to assume that larger groups would be likely to cause more concerns and would be more difficult for the appellant to control. Lower numbers are therefore likely to be a benefit. Fifteen would remain a high number compared to most households. Whilst a family may have large parties, such activity would be less likely to be on a weekly basis.

The limit on the days of operation would still allow for occupation either nearly every weekend or for two days most weeks. Although limiting days would be a benefit as it may prevent an increase in concerns, this figure represents the figure stated as being about the current level usage.

Seeking to prevent external activity after 11pm; and preventing any external amplified music, together with limitations on sound systems internally, would assist in helping to limit overnight noise in particular and may assist with the complaints made in relation to daytime and evening noise. This would also require control over amplification systems brought by clients which are becoming ever more powerful whilst remaining easily portable.

A direct number to contact the appellant with concerns would assist. This would allow the appellant to contact the guests and if necessary, visit the property. The appellant could also undertake unannounced checks on guests but this has not been suggested as a formal procedure and it is unclear what level of management the appellant anticipates would be involved. It would be unreasonable to expect the neighbouring property users to monitor and report incidents except in exceptional circumstances. I would expect more than an ad hoc approach to monitoring by the appellant. No evidence has been provided with regard to the camera monitoring equipment or whether it is proposed that there would be any live surveillance of the footage.

Aside from making notes of incidents and requesting guests to reduce noise, it is unclear what procedures would then follow. Whilst guests may comply initially, this may not persist. No monitoring of this has currently been proposed. It is suggested that guests may be asked to leave the premises and deposits may be retained. The threat of the retention of a deposit may assist in these circumstances but once that threshold has been reached, it would appear that there would be limited further potential sanctions. There is nothing before me to suggest that making guests leave would be easily achieved or practical, particularly at short notice.

Without an on-site management presence, which has not been proposed, serious reservations about the ability of the appellant to control such matters or respond to such matters in a timely manner, even with the notification procedures and the cameras, must remain. The current information provided to clients with regard to behaviour has not been provided. I assume it may be possible to provide Appeal Decision: 6000996 considerably greater levels of information regarding the sensitivity of neighbouring uses; and required behaviour standards. It has not been made clear whether this information would be provided in person by the appellant or a representative, to the group of clients as a whole on arrival. Without this, it is possible that only the lead organiser would be made aware of the requirements. Reliance on others in the group being informed by the organiser or reading such requirements before arrival or at the house, would seem to be likely to be less effective.

The information presented and the types of groups that have been described as renting the property in the past, does not suggest that all members of groups are likely to have regard to information provided or that they would be motivated to, or be able, to adequately police themselves. Whilst the appellant may be able to contact these groups and a financial penalty may be possible by way of an additional deposit, I am not persuaded that this would overcome concerns for all group types. I am mindful also that such a business relies, to some extent, on positive reviews which itself would place the operator in a difficult position should concerns arise.

The Example Site Noise Management Policy would not be sufficient without greater detail and greater positive surveillance and management. Furthermore, given the existing history of the unlawful use and as I have very serious reservations regarding the possibility of adequately controlling guests in the future, particularly without on-site management, it would only be reasonable to consider a temporary permission in the first instance.

Limiting the period of consent has not been sought or suggested. I am not satisfied that it would be reasonable to limit the length of the permission without all parties having had the opportunity to comment on such an approach. In any event, the suggested management strategy does not go far enough. It is not possible to assess whether the additional management requirements that may be necessary would be acceptable to the appellant and would not prejudice the operation of the business, making such requirements unreasonable. I am also not satisfied that the measures proposed to date, without further clarification, would be enforceable.

Reference has been made to a condition imposed as part of an appeal decision in an urban area of York (APP/C2741/C/23/3319791). Some reference is made by the inspector to the concerns that resulted from the unauthorised use of that property but the two cases are very different in many respects. In that case, the inspector considered that a condition requiring a management plan would address the concerns relating to the use of the property by up to ten persons. I have considered the condition imposed but do not find that it would be acceptable in the circumstances of this case, given the information before me.

Although the appellant disputes that there have been any legitimate concerns with regard to noise and disturbance unacceptably harming the use of the adjoining land, the evidence provided by the council is compelling. The appellant has not sought to address this evidence in terms of the dates put forward, the client group sizes or the nature of the groups that were renting the property when the complaints were made to the council. On the evidence before me, I conclude that the activity within the property in 2025 has resulted in unacceptable harm to the users of the adjoining site. I am not persuaded that the noise and disturbance Appeal Decision: 6000996 within the neighbouring dwelling would generally be considered acceptable, notwithstanding that the current occupant does not have a concern with it.

It is accepted that the house has been used without the benefit of planning permission and without conditions. Although the appellant advises that the use has been controlled, I have considered the potential to impose conditions in order to formalise management involvement and introduce further measures to reduce potential future noise and disturbance events. The suggestions for reducing the scale of the occupation and measures to limit the activities of residents would no doubt offer improvements if followed and enforced. However, I am not satisfied that the information provided offers sufficient management intervention or controls. The position of the patio area is also a significant concern. Whilst further measures and greater management involvement could be required by a management plan, to be agreed by the council, the evidence submitted to date and the limited management involvement suggested, does not indicate that such a plan would suitably reduce concerns to an acceptable level.

I conclude that the use of the property as proposed would result in unacceptable harm from noise and disturbance for surrounding users. [name] am not persuaded that adequate mitigation is being offered, the proposal would be contrary to policy SP52 of the Rotherham Local Plan 2018 as it would continue to result in detrimental impacts to the amenity of the local area; and it has not been demonstrated that mitigation measures would minimise potential impacts to levels that protect amenity. I also find conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The use of the property would continue to result in economic benefits in attracting visitors that contribute to the vitality of this business and many others in the local area. Although there have been complaints made regarding numerous dates, it would seem that many users have benefitted from the facilities offered without complaint. Whilst these matters weigh in favour of the use, they do not outweigh my overall concerns. I therefore dismiss the appeal.