Appeal 6001364

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the supply of housing in the Council area; • the character of the area; • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance; and • highway safety.

The description of development references a change of use from residential to short term rentals. Short term rentals can fall within the C3 use class (‘dwellinghouses’). However, they can also be a sui generis use depending on the specific circumstances. Whether a change of use would occur is a matter of fact and degree.

In this instance, the submissions before me explain that stays would typically range from 1 to 3 days and involve up to 14 guests with the maximum duration of any bookings limited to 90 days. If there were multiple bookings during one week, up to 14 people could leave the property on one day as their booking ends, and another 14 people could arrive later in the day as their booking begins. This could result in high levels of activity untypical of a conventional residential use. In addition, there would be comings and goings during the stay and a generally more intensive level of occupation. Some visitors may arrive and leave at unsocial hours. Furthermore, if there is a gap between bookings, the property could potentially sit vacant for a number of days or weeks. This would be different to the operation of a conventional dwelling occupied by a family or single household on a longer-term basis. Consequently, the evidence before me indicates that the particular characteristics of the proposal would result in a change of use. The proposal would therefore result in the loss of a C3 dwelling, representing a minor reduction in the amount of housing within the Council area.

I share the view of the Council that the impact of this should be viewed in the context of the prevailing housing land supply position. The submissions before me indicate that the Council can currently only demonstrate a five-year housing land supply of something in the region of 2.4-2.96 years, which is a considerable shortfall. The proposed loss of a dwelling would harmfully exacerbate the deficit.

Whilst the property may be capable of reverting back to a dwellinghouse at some point in the future, the scheme does not seek a temporary permission. There is also no evidence before me to suggest that the appellant would intend to revert the property back, if the appeal were to be allowed and the permission implemented. The property is not the appellant’s primary home. Accordingly, these points carry limited weight in my deliberations.

The appellant suggests that a planning application for approximately 350 homes is expected to be submitted shortly and if this development proceeded it would increase local housing supply, thereby mitigating any impact of the use of the property for short term lets. However, based on the information before me, no such application has been submitted at present. Even if an application has been submitted, there is no guarantee that it would be approved or that the development would come forward. This point does not outweigh the harm identified.

For the above reasons, the scheme would result in a harmful loss of a dwelling. It would therefore be contrary to Policy 1 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan (BLP). Amongst other things, this policy seeks to maintain a five-year supply of land for housing.

The character of an area goes beyond physical appearance. It also encompasses how a development contributes towards local identity. With this in mind, the appeal site consists of a two-storey semi-detached property with parking to the frontage. The surrounding area is predominately characterised by family sized dwellings and is typical of a quiet suburban street. Indeed, the area is residential in character with no examples of tourist accommodation nearby. The street therefore has a settled rather than transient character.

For reasons already explained, the proposed short-term rental could be occupied intensively by large groups that would change regularly. The comings and goings of up to 14 people would be readily discernible due to the tight-knit residential nature of the street and would indicate the absence of settled occupants. Even if the property was not at full occupation, with less guests staying, the additional noise and disturbance as guests arrive and depart would still be readily discernible and would contrast with and be harmful to the prevailing settled residential character of the area.

The appellant contends that the character of the area could be preserved by clear house rules, occupancy limits and a code of conduct. These measures would be managed by the appellant who lives next door to the site and ensured through the use of a planning condition. The appellant could also ensure that the property is not used for parties or disruptive gatherings. However, I consider that the above impacts of the development are inherent in the nature of the activity and are thus not capable of being adequately mitigated by these measures.

Overall, for the reasons outlined above, the scheme would be contrary to Policy 37 of the BLP and Policies D3 and E10 of the London Plan (LP). Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that development responds to the local character of an area and resists such accommodation where it would compromise local amenity.

Even if Policy 88 of the BLP, which relates to hotels, guesthouses and boarding houses is not relevant to the scheme, the scheme would still be contrary to the BLP in this regard, when taken as a whole.

As outlined previously, the scheme would accommodate up to 14 guests which would result in additional comings and goings, such as multiple people departing the property as their booking finishes, and others arriving. This could also occur multiple times a week if there are numerous short bookings. Such noise could also include that associated with people on holiday such as, unpacking cars, pulling suitcases into the house, multiple guests arriving and departing to go for dinner or to undertake activities and gatherings in the garden. On occasion, guests may also arrive and leave at unsocial hours due to potential delays or changes to their travel arrangements. Additionally, a number of interested parties have raised concerns associated with noise and disturbance from the proposed use, which they state has already commenced. Whilst such noise and disturbance may be fleeting, it would still be more than that associated with the property’s use as a conventional family dwelling, even if the property was occupied by a large multi-generational family.

The appellant argues that the Council’s assessment does not include evidence such as data and is instead based on assumptions. However, for the reasons outlined, these are reasonable assumptions to make. The appellant lives next door to the site and would therefore be able to monitor the property and behaviour of any guests. House rules could also be ensured through a planning condition, and guests could be carefully selected to ensure they are suitable. However, as set out, the adverse impacts of the development are inherent in the nature of the activity and are thus not capable of being adequately mitigated by these measures.

For the reasons outlined above, I consider that the development would result in some harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance. It would therefore be contrary to Policy 37 and 119 of the BLP and Policies D3, D14 and E10 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that such development does not harm neighbouring amenity.

Even if Policy 88 of the BLP, which relates to hotels, guesthouses and boarding houses is not relevant to the scheme, it is still contrary to the BLP in this regard, when taken as a whole.

The site provides two off-street car parking spaces. It has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) score of 1A, which is considered very poor. The appellant outlines how despite this rating, the site has good access to public transport facilities and local services. There is however limited information relating to the location of various public transport services or routes before me. Based on the evidence available, I share the view of the Council that given the sites accessibility any visitors would likely arrive by car.

On my site visit, there was limited evidence of parking stress in the area, with numerous on street parking spaces available. I am aware that this represents a snapshot in time, however given the residential nature of the area, I have no reason to believe that what I saw is not representative. The main parties have not set out what the parking demand for the proposal would be. However, based on the number of guests that the property could accommodate and the absence of evidence to the contrary, I consider it likely that on occasion the site may not be able to accommodate the parking demand generated, resulting in parking overspill onto the highway. There is potential for this spillage to be significant if people travel to the site in small groups.

Nonetheless, as set out, there is ample on street parking available. It was also evident on my site visit that cars travel slowly through the area and there is no evidence before me to demonstrate evidence of crashes or accidents in the area. As such, whilst any spillage may be a nuisance to neighbours, I am not satisfied that it would be harmful to highway safety.

To conclude, for the above reasons, the scheme would not result in unacceptable harm to highway safety. The scheme would be in accordance with Policies 30 and 32 of the BLP and Policy T6 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure highway safety. I also find no conflict with Policy T6.4 of the LP.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, my findings are unaltered on account of this because my focus in considering this appeal is the merits of the Council’s decision.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of other planning applications. The scheme at [address] (Ref: 24/00415/FUL) involved one existing bedroom, which would be occupied by no more than 2 occupants at any one time. The rest of the house would remain as a single dwelling. It is therefore not directly comparable to the appeal before me, which would involve the entire dwelling. The scheme at [address] (Ref: 21/00237/FULL1) is also not directly comparable to the appeal because permission was sought for the change of use from an off license to a one-bedroom flat and the application was withdrawn prior to determination. As such, there is no inconsistency between my findings and those of other decision makers.

The scheme would not result in unacceptable overlooking, loss of light or outlook. These are however neutral factors and do not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal. Whilst the scheme may comply with other local plan policies, and certain criterion of specific policies, it would fail to comply with the BLP and the LP as a whole for the reasons set out above.

As set out above, it is accepted that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, with a considerable shortfall. Both main parties agree that paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged on account of this. I am not entirely convinced by this as the proposal is not for the provision of housing and there is nothing before me to suggest the most important policies for determining the appeal are out of date when considered as a collective basket. Nevertheless, I have applied the presumption in favour of sustainable development on a precautionary basis.

It is suggested that the proposal would address a need for short-term accommodation for construction workers, itinerant workers, tourists, students and wedding guests, amongst other groups of people. However, there is limited empirical evidence before me to demonstrate a local need for such accommodation. I have therefore given this minimal weight. The appellant also states that the development would contribute to tourism, spending and employment in the area. The scheme would therefore result in some economic and social benefits; however, I am conscious that the property’s use as a conventional dwellinghouse would also contribute to spending and employment in the area.

As outlined, the evidence demonstrates a shortfall in the supply of housing and to contrast, there is limited evidence before me to demonstrate a need for such short-term accommodation. As such, the proposal would not be a more efficient use of land. The appellant outlines how the scheme is located in an area well served by public transport and close to local amenities. However, as set out, the site has a PTAL rating of 1A. I have afforded this consideration limited weight in favour of the development.

The scheme may enable reinvestment in the property, but given the small scale of the development, I have afforded this limited weight in favour of the appeal. Based on the evidence before me, it is unclear how the development would contribute positively to the neighbourhood’s inclusivity, I have afforded this point little weight.

Accordingly, I find that the adverse impacts arising from the development in terms of its effect on the supply of housing in the Council area, the character of the area and on the living conditions of neighbours, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited weight attributed to the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The application of the presumption in Paragraph 11 of the Framework is not a material consideration that indicates the proposal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed. S.[name]