Appeal 6002360

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties, with particular reference to noise and disturbance.

The appeal property comprises a back-to-back dwelling within a tightly knit residential street characterised by close proximity between properties, limited private external space and a strong, predominantly residential character. In such an environment, occupants typically experience a high degree of mutual awareness, and living conditions are particularly sensitive to changes in activity and movement associated with adjoining uses.

The proposed use of the appeal property would introduce a form of occupation that is materially different in character from that of a permanent Class C3 dwelling. The appellant contends that a family household could generate an equal or greater number of trips and movements than those associated with the proposed use. While that may be so in purely numerical terms, it does not address the nature of those movements. Activity associated with a permanent household is distinguished by a settled and predictable pattern of comings and goings generally characterised by established routines and a degree of predictability, whereas short-term holiday accommodation is, by its nature, characterised by frequent turnover, repeated arrivals and departures, and a lack of established daily routines.

I acknowledge that neither party has submitted technical evidence, such as noise assessments or complaint records. Nevertheless, the absence of empirical evidence does not preclude the exercise of planning judgement. In this case, having regard to the back-to-back form of the property, the limited separation distances between properties and the close relationship with neighbouring dwellings, I consider that the change in the character and frequency of activity associated with the proposed use would be likely to result in increased disturbance to neighbouring occupants, to the detriment of their living conditions.

The Management and Mitigation Plan included in the evidence before me contains measures intended to limit noise and disturbance, such as occupancy restrictions, house rules and a contact number for neighbours. These measures are relevant and I have taken them into account. However, they rely heavily on guest compliance and reactive management and would not prevent the fundamental change in the pattern and frequency of activity associated with short-term occupation. In particular, they would not materially reduce the likelihood of disturbance arising from repeated arrivals and departures at varying times, which is intrinsic to the proposed use.

Given the back-to-back form of the property, the limited separation distances and the close relationship with neighbouring dwellings, I find that the proposal would be likely to result in a noticeable erosion of residential amenity through increased noise, disturbance and activity. This would conflict with the reasonable expectations of occupants in this established residential environment.

I have also considered the matters of community cohesion and the fear of anti-social behaviour. While such matters are difficult to quantify and carry limited weight in isolation, they reinforce my view that the introduction of a transient form of accommodation in this particular location would be out of keeping with the prevailing residential character and would exacerbate the identified effects on residential amenity.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants due to increased noise and disturbance. Conflict therefore arises with Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (as amended by the [name] 2019) (September 2019), saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) (July 2006), which seek, among other things, to ensure development secures a good standard of amenity for existing and future residents.

The appellant refers to other appeal decisions which are said to support the acceptability of short-term holiday accommodation in residential areas. However, no specific appeal references or detailed comparisons have been provided. I have had regard to this general assertion, but each appeal must be determined on its own merits, having regard to the particular circumstances of the site and its surroundings.

I also note the appellant’s contention that there is no evidence of a harmful concentration of short-term holiday accommodation in the area and that cumulative impacts have not been demonstrated. However, the appeal before me relates to a single dwelling, and the absence of cumulative harm does not preclude a finding that a proposal would be unacceptable on its own merits where it would be likely to cause harm to residential amenity.

The appellant further points to the absence of a neighbourhood plan, an Article 4 direction or a specific local policy restricting short-term holiday accommodation, and highlights national policy support for tourism, economic activity, a diversity of accommodation and the effective use of existing housing stock. I have taken these matters into account and recognise that short-term accommodation can make a positive contribution to the visitor economy, including through use of local shops, cafés and services. However, the absence of plan-making controls does not indicate that all forms of short-term accommodation are acceptable in all locations. Development proposals must still be assessed against general amenity policies and the particular circumstances of the site. Nor do these matters outweigh my concerns about the effects of the appeal scheme.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan, when considered as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.