Appeal 6002161

The appeal is dismissed.

The evidence indicates that the property has been operating as a short-term holiday let since at least October 2024. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that the proposal is retrospective.

The main issue is the effect of the use on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal property is one half of a semi-detached, three-bed dormer bungalow situated on a quiet residential street in Huntingdon. The plot is modest and the hardsurfaced frontage is entirely open. A large commercial waste bin is positioned at the front of the property, introducing a distinctly commercial element into an otherwise domestic street scene.

Representations from multiple neighbours and the Parish Council provide detailed and consistent accounts of disturbance arising from the short-term letting of the property. These refer to shouting, amplified music and disruptive behaviour extending into the early hours. One incident involved up to ten people waiting outside the property late at night, together with five vehicles parked in the immediate vicinity. Concerns have also been raised regarding refuse spilling from the commercial waste bin and accumulating around the frontage. These accounts relate specifically to activity associated with guest arrival, departure and occupation. They are consistent in their detail, directly linked to short-term letting use, and are not contradicted by any substantive evidence. It is this site-specific evidence of disturbance, rather than any generalised concerns about holiday accommodation, that carries significant weight.

Based on my own observations, it is reasonable to expect that the adjoining occupiers at No 11 would be exposed to all activity associated with guest arrivals, departures, loading and unloading, bin use, and general outdoor conversation at the front of the property. The openness of the frontage and proximity of No 11’s front habitable windows to the parking area means that noise from vehicle movements, car doors, engines and luggage wheels would be highly noticeable to those neighbours, particularly during evenings when ambient noise levels are low and sensitivity to disturbance is higher. Given this close physical relationship, even ordinary levels of short-term guest activity have the potential to give rise to intrusive noise.

At the rear, wide doors from the kitchen/dining area open directly onto a patio and modest garden that adjoins neighbouring gardens at close quarters. The layout encourages the use of the outdoor space for social activity during warmer weather and increases the likelihood of the rear doors being left open. Noise from such activity, particularly from conversations and music, is likely to carry readily to adjoining properties. The nature of short-term holiday occupation increases the likelihood of intensive use of both indoor and outdoor areas, resulting in a greater propensity for disturbance when compared with a typical C3 dwelling.

The appellant states that guests are likely to spend most of their time in the city, that booking rules prohibit hen/stag type bookings, and that the accommodation is domestic in scale. However, the retrospective nature of the proposal means that I am assessing the effects of an established pattern of use. The disturbance already experienced by neighbours significantly undermines the assertion that the use is not intensive. Although booking rules and management controls are said to be in place, these measures have not prevented the disturbance described by neighbours. I therefore give only limited weight to the claimed safeguards.

I have been referred to a number of appeal decisions concerning similar uses in York. In those cases, Inspectors found that the transient nature of short-term holiday occupation inherently increases the risk of noise and disturbance, and that conditions seeking to regulate guest behaviour, restrict outdoor areas or impose curfews were either unenforceable or unreasonable. Those decisions emphasised that even with responsible management, the nature of holiday occupation means that consistent control cannot be reliably maintained. The circumstances of the present case align with that reasoning, including the quiet residential context and reliance on behavioural controls, which supports my view that conditions would not make the development acceptable.

Based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the use has resulted in significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers due to noise and disturbance. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies D1 and ENV2 of the York Local Plan (2025), which require development to protect neighbour amenity and avoid significant adverse environmental impacts, including noise and disturbance. It is also contrary to paragraph 135 f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which requires planning decisions to ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

I recognise that the use provides some economic benefits through employment, visitor expenditure and its contribution to the supply of tourist accommodation in the area. However, these benefits are modest in scale when attributed to a single property. They do not outweigh the harm I have identified or the resulting conflict with the development plan and the Framework when read as a whole. The proposal does not therefore amount to sustainable development within the meaning of the Framework.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations that outweigh that conflict. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.