Appeal 6002379

The appeal is dismissed.

An application was made for a change of use from C3 dwelling house to C5 to be used for the purpose of Air b and b serviced accommodation. However, that use class does not currently exist in England. The Council changed the description from that applied for to change of use of the C3 dwelling house into C1 to be used for the purpose of Airbnb serviced accommodation. An appellant is entitled to a determination on what they have applied for and it is not the role of an Inspector dealing solely with an application for planning permission to conduct an exercise as to lawful operations (such as would normally be formally determined by a lawful certificate application), this includes in order to decide whether the appellant might be able to rely on permitted development rights as a fallback. Nonetheless, the Council’s change is a more accurate description of the development applied for. The application was determined by the Council on that basis, and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposed use would be acceptable with regard to the effect on the supply of family housing and whether it would meet a need; • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring properties with regard to noise nuisance and disturbance.

The appeal site is a two-storey dwelling located within a terrace of similar properties. [address] is predominantly residential except for a petrol station at one end facing onto [address] South.

Policy SP 3 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2020- 2037, adopted September 2024 (LP) sets out that in order to address the borough’s specific housing needs, the Council will prioritise self-contained family housing, which is in line with Policy SPDG 1 of the LP that seeks to encourage incremental intensification of existing residential areas within PTALs 3-6.

The appellant sets out that the PTAL 4 site would provide 3-bedroom tourist accommodation for a family visiting London, would be close to key public transport links, with a parking space available within the property boundary and space for bicycles.

Notwithstanding there would be no alterations to the existing building, which would remain proportionate in terms of size and scale to the location, and that the property could return to a Class C3 (dwellinghouses) use without planning permission, there is no evidence before me which outlines the appellant’s future intention to convert the property back to its original use. In any event, it is unlikely that the tourism revenue generated from the proposed development would be comparable to that that generated by a family including the social and economic benefits attained through local shopping and use of community facilities.

It is clear from the information submitted that the proposed development would not retain a permanent, single-family use of the home, which would not meet the objectives of the LP to prioritise such housing.

On this basis, I conclude that the proposed development would conflict with policies SP 3, SPDG 1, DME 3 and DME 4 of the LP and Policy E10 of the London Plan in that it would have an adverse effect on the specific housing needs and would not accord with the principal surrounding land use, it would not be located within a town centre or Opportunity Area and would not accord with the Council’s objective to prioritise single-family housing.

The proposed development is outside the [name] (CAZ), a town centre area, and is not within an Opportunity Area, and would therefore conflict with Policy E10 of the London Plan, adopted March 2021. This promotes serviced accommodation in those areas firstly (in accordance with the sequential test set out in the London Plan). In addition, no evidence has been provided to substantiate that the proposal has been measured against the required sequential test.

Policy DME 3 of the LP sets out that the Town Centre boundaries clearly relate to the application of the sequential and impact tests, and seeks to direct main town centre uses to town centres. Although the proposal would not result in an over-concentration of serviced accommodation within the predominantly residential area, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the scheme has been assessed against the required sequential test to justify the chosen location and be consistent with the surrounding principal land use.

The nature of the proposed development would likely generate increased comings and goings by different families or small groups, given arrival and departure times, servicing and deliveries, and waste collection, going beyond what could reasonably be expected from a single-family household. Be that as it may, no concerns have been raised in the Environmental Health consultation response concerning noise nuisance or disturbance to neighbouring properties; and I am satisfied that a Management Plan for visitor accommodation to address such issues could be secured by planning condition.

Moreover, no detailed evidence has been provided to demonstrate that any additional noise or disturbance arising from more frequent visits would amount to nuisance or cause material harm to the living conditions of nearby residents.

Consequently, on the evidence before me and my own observations the use as three-bedroom Airbnb accommodation would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring properties including No.[address] and the surrounding residential area.

It would not be contrary to [name] 4, DMD 1 and DMSI 3 of the LP, which require proposals to have no significant adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and the surrounding area, and to manage and mitigate the impacts of nuisance generated through the operation of development. Additionally, the proposed development would accord with Policy D14 of the London Plan which sets out that residential and other non-aviation development should manage noise by avoiding significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life.

I am satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to any material adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, this consideration does not outweigh the harm caused by the proposed change of use to Airbnb accommodation at this location given the clear policy requirement of the LP and London Plan to prioritise self-contained family housing in the area, and promote serviced accommodation in town centre and Opportunity Area locations in accordance with the sequential test set out in the London Plan.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.