Appeal 6002707

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed change of use of existing ancillary residential outbuilding to also allow for ‘short-term holiday lettings’. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to ‘alterations to approved elevations and new boundary wall’ at [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00953/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos SCRPPC05 REV03 and SCRPPC04 REV03 except in respect of the provision of car parking in the area facing [address] and shown on plan SCRPPC04 REV03.

The area to the front of the existing ancillary residential outbuilding facing [address] and shown on drawing no SCRPPC04 REV03 and including the area identified for ‘car parking for short stay’ shall not be used for car parking.

Planning permission was granted on appeal1 for the extension and a new roof to the existing outbuilding and conversion to home office/temporary accommodation on the site without compliance with conditions 2 and 3 previously imposed on planning permission [name]/22/01371/HHA. The appeal decision retained the condition that the development permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling at [site address] . The Inspector in that instance reimposed the condition relating to the occupation of the building as this was uncontested and appeared to them to still be relevant. 1 [name]/23/00687/HHA73 / APP/H4505/D/23/3332391

It was evident on my site visit that works proposed in the planning application subject to the appeal had commenced. The building I observed on site appeared generally as detailed on the planning application drawings. However, there was a step providing access to the doorway giving access from the proposed parking area to the front of the building which is not shown on those drawings. There was also a planter positioned on the front boundary of the site. For clarity, I have based my decision on the submitted plans. I have removed the term “retrospective” from the development description in the banner heading above as this is not an act of development. The appellant has indicated that use of the building for short-term holiday letting has commenced. [name] have no evidence to indicate that the area to the front of the building is currently being used for car parking.

In their documentation, the appellant suggests that the development subject to the appeal does not require planning permission as it does not represent a material change of use. The Council have determined the application on the basis that the development is a material change of use from Use Class C3 (dwellinghouse) to sui generis. I have assessed the appeal on the same basis. It is not my role in the determination of this appeal to determine the existing lawful use of the premises.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the development on highway safety having regard to car parking provision; and • the effect of the development on the living conditions of surrounding residential occupiers and specifically those at No [address] with regard to noise generation.

The development includes an area to the front of the building proposed for use as car parking for residents of the holiday let. The appellant does not dispute the need for car parking associated with the development.

Given the layout and limited depth of the area to the front of the site proposed for off‐street parking, I share the Council’s concerns regarding its practical usability and the impact on the adjacent footway arising from vehicle overhang. I recognise that, due to its limited depth, vehicles parked entirely within the site would be likely to obstruct access to the main entrance to the building at the side, as well as the retained French‐style windows providing direct access to the front bedroom. I therefore conclude that, if vehicles were parked so as to maintain access to the building, use of this area would be likely to harm the safe use of the footway as a result of vehicle overhang, potentially requiring pedestrians to step into the carriageway to pass. This would be of particular concern for users with pushchairs or wheelchairs and represents a significant safety issue. Alternatively, if this area were not used for parking and vehicles were instead parked on the highway, this would generate additional demand for on‐street parking.

Moreover, it was evident on my site visit, undertaken on a weekday morning, that there is significant demand for on‐street parking in the surrounding area. I appreciate that this is only a snapshot in time and the parking demand associated with a holiday let may be intermittent. However, it could equally occur for prolonged periods, particularly as the unit provides two bedrooms, so is capable of generating on‐street parking demand for more than one vehicle. The appellant contends that ample on-street parking capacity exists in the locality, but this is not corroborated by any substantive evidence. Conversely, the submissions before me from local residents identify harm arising from the additional on-street parking demand likely to be generated by the development.

While national policy supports the use of alternative modes of transport and acknowledges that reduced parking provision may be appropriate where services and public transport are readily accessible, I have no evidence before me to indicate that such services are available within the locality.

There is, therefore, potential for the development to generate a requirement for on‐street parking which, given the existing levels of demand, would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety in the immediate area. This concern is due in part to the site’s proximity to several junctions, together with notable changes in ground levels, both of which would further compromise visibility, manoeuvrability, and safe conditions for all road users. As such, the development is contrary to paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). In reaching this conclusion, I note that paragraph 116 of the Framework makes clear that it is not necessary for an impact on highway safety to be severe in order to warrant refusal of planning permission; an unacceptable impact is sufficient.

For these reasons, I find that the development is contrary to Policy MSGP15 of the [name] for Growing Places Local Plan Document for Gateshead 2021 (the MSGPLPD) and Policy CS14 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Newcastle and Gateshead 2010–2030 (the [name]). These policies require, amongst other things, that development provides safe and secure access to and within the site for all users, delivers an appropriate level of parking to ensure the safe and effective operation of the transport network, and provides safe and secure pedestrian links. The development fails to meet these requirements.

It is reasonable to conclude that holiday lets can give rise to comings and goings and associated activity that may affect the living conditions of surrounding occupiers. Some of this activity could occur as part of a residential use. However, people on holiday are more likely to keep different and less predictable hours than neighbouring residents, including early‐morning and late‐evening movements, as well as increased daytime activity.

There is no record of complaints regarding noise, nuisance or unacceptable behaviour having been made to the Council regarding the use of the premises as a holiday let while it has been operational over recent months. Nevertheless, the absence of complaints to the Council does not, in itself, demonstrate that the use is acceptable in terms of noise generation, or that there is no likelihood of such issues arising in the future. Moreover, the occupants of No [address], directly adjacent to the site, have identified noise disturbance arising from the operation of the holiday let as being harmful to their living conditions. Based on my observations on site, this appears to be exacerbated by the location of the main entrance to the appeal property on the side elevation, adjacent to the shared boundary with No 2, and by its elevated position overlooking the garden of that property. It is reasonable to conclude that holiday lets can give rise to comings and goings and associated activity that may affect the living conditions of surrounding occupiers. While some of this activity could occur as part of a residential use, those on holiday are more likely to keep different and less predictable hours than neighbouring residents, including early‐morning and late‐evening movements, as well as increased daytime activity. Neighbouring occupiers have stated that they have previously been disturbed by noise associated with the use of the site for holiday let accommodation, and this is consistent with this conclusion regarding the potential harm to living conditions of surrounding occupiers caused by holiday lets.

It is not contested that the area does not contain a significant number of similar holiday lets and, as such, there is limited potential for cumulative impacts associated with such uses. However, this also serves to highlight the strongly residential character of the area, in which the introduction of a holiday let is more likely to conflict with the prevailing land use and result in noticeable impacts on neighbour amenity.

While the appellant suggests that use of the premises is intermittent and more likely to accommodate families rather than larger groups who may generate higher levels of noise, I am not satisfied that such matters could be effectively controlled, including by planning conditions. Any such condition would be unlikely to be reasonable or enforceable, as set out in the tests at paragraph 57 of the Framework.

For these reasons, the use of the building and its associated outdoor space as a holiday let, together with its proximity to the neighbouring dwelling, is likely to give rise to unacceptable levels of noise to nearby residents. The development is therefore contrary to Policy CS14 of the [name] and Policy MSGP17 of the MSGPLPD, which require, amongst other things, that development prevents negative impacts on residential amenity arising from noise.

The development provides additional visitor accommodation and contributes to supporting tourism, which aligns with Objective SO5 of the MSGPLPD and Core Strategy Policy CS8. However, this does not negate the need to ensure that such a use does not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of surrounding occupiers. I have not been presented with evidence to support the assertion that the development address unmet demand for visitor accommodation. Any local economic benefits arising from the development are likely to be very limited and I have not been refered to any social or environmental benefits of note. The harm to highway safety and living conditions associated with the use is likely be significantly greater than that generated by the permitted existing use of the site which is the fall back position.

I do not consider that the development provides a form of residential accommodation and, therefore, objectives relating to maintaining a range of housing types and sizes under [name] SO6, or Policy CS9 of the [name], which seeks to secure an appropriate mix of housing are not relevant to the determination of this appeal. For the same reason, the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, as set out in the Framework, is also not applicable in this case.

I do not find that the development harms the living conditions of surrounding occupiers in respect of access to light, outlook or loss of privacy and there is no conflict with MSGPLPD Policy MSGP17 in this regard.

I do not find harm arising from the external alterations and new boundary wall included as part of the development on either the character and appearance of the area or the living conditions of surrounding occupiers. These elements are therefore acceptable as development consisting of works which are severable from the use of the development. This does justify a split decision in this instance.

The appeal site is not located within a conservation area and the development does not give rise to harm to any heritage asset. I have also not been presented with evidence to persuade me that the use represents a more effective or efficient use of urban land than the existing use of the premises which do not appear underutilised and no evidence is provided to indicate that they are.

I have not imposed the standard condition relating to the time limit for commencement of development, because the works forming part of the development hereby permitted have already commenced on the site.

I have included a condition relating to the approved plans. It is clear that elements of the development undertaken on site are not wholly consistent with the submitted drawings. In this regard, I note the planter positioned at the front boundary of the existing ancillary residential outbuilding fronting [address].

I have imposed a condition prohibiting the use of the area to the front of the existing ancillary residential outbuilding for car parking. This is because I am not satisfied that parking can be safely accommodated in this location without vehicles overhanging the pavement.

I have not imposed the conditions suggested by the Council as they are only relevant if planning permission was being granted for the change of use. As this is not the case here, such conditions are not necessary.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to alterations to approved elevations and new boundary wall. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to change of use of existing ancillary residential outbuilding to also allow for short term holiday lettings.