Appeal 6002856

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application was submitted following a complaint to the Council’s Enforcement Team. Subsequent investigations confirmed that the hostel was operating without the required 24‐hour on‐site supervision provided by a manned reception, and that a commercial waste bin was being stored in the back lane, both in contravention of planning permission 2013/1625.01/DET. These breaches have not been disputed by the appellant. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that the application was made under Section 73A where development authorised by a planning permission has been carried out without compliance with one or more conditions.

The Council states that as part of the planning enforcement enquiry in respect of the property, the hostel operator confirmed that the reception desk was removed following the Covid 19 Pandemic, This has not been disputed by the appellant.

The appellant has submitted an alternative, revised management plan with the appeal for my consideration, in the event that I were to allow the appeal and impose alternative management-related conditions. I have had regard to this document in my consideration of the appeal.

The main issues in this appeal are whether the removal of the conditions: • relating to the management of the hostel, including the requirement for 24‐hour on‐site supervision provided by a manned reception, would result in an unacceptable impact on crime and the fear of crime affecting both residents of the hostel and neighbouring occupiers; and • relating to the requirement for on‐site management and the provision of appropriate facilities for the storage and handling of waste, would ensure that adequate arrangements for the management and storage of refuse are maintained.

Policies CS14 and CS15 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Newcastle and Gateshead 2010–2030 (the [name]), together with Policy DM20 of the [site address] Development and Allocations Plan 2020 (the DAP), require, amongst other things, that the wellbeing and health of communities are maintained by creating an inclusive built environment. The policies seek to ensure that development creates safe and inclusive places, contributes to reducing crime and disorder, is resilient to the risk of terrorism, and delivers secure buildings and spaces.

Paragraphs 96 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) requires that planning decisions should create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

The removal or amendment of Condition 5 would enable the hostel to operate without complying with the management plan required by that condition. The approved management plan includes the provision of 24‐hour on‐site supervision by a manned reception. The appellant’s alternative proposal, where the condition is not removed entirely but replaced with a revised management plan, would also mean that 24‐hour on‐site supervision by a manned reception would no longer occur. Instead, reception functions would be provided through the convenience store located at ground‐floor level beneath the hostel during opening hours, with additional management and surveillance delivered through CCTV. However, these arrangements would not provide the same level of direct oversight or immediate presence as continuous on‐site staffing.

There is evidence that, in recent years, the hostel has been a focus for crime and anti‐social behaviour. In objecting to the removal of Condition 5, [name] has provided data for the period from 11 May 2019 to 1 August 2025, showing that 49 incidents were recorded at the property. These comprised 24 incidents (49%) categorised as public safety and welfare, 20 incidents (41%) classified as crime, including threats of violence and common assault, and 4 incidents (8%) relating to anti‐social behaviour. No data has been provided for the period prior to 11 May 2019; however, the majority of this period falls after the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic, during which time the appellant indicates that the 24‐hour manned reception was withdrawn due to lower occupancy levels making it financially unviable to retain that element of the management plan.

In this context, it is reasonable to conclude that the presence of on‐site staff 24 hours a day is an important factor in managing the facility in a manner that reduces crime and anti‐social behaviour. During the period when such supervision appears to have been absent, there has been a significant number of incidents of this nature associated with the hostel. [name] also identify that the proposal would specifically increase the risk of child sexual exploitation and violence against women and girls due to the lack of continuous on‐site supervision. The professional views of the local police force are a significant material consideration, and I attach substantial weight to their assessment.

The appellant proposes that access to the facility could instead be managed via the convenience store located at ground‐floor level, as outlined in the revised management plan. This arrangement would include monitored CCTV within the hostel. However, without evidence relating to the nature of monitoring, I share [name] concerns regarding the adequacy of CCTV monitoring, and I consider that the potential for crime and anti‐social behaviour would remain significant during periods when the convenience store is closed and no direct on‐site management is present. This would apply both to internal activity within the hostel and to associated comings and goings. For these reasons, I am satisfied that there is clear justification for retaining Condition 5, which requires the provision of 24‐hour on‐site supervision by a manned reception.

The appellant contends that Condition 5, along with the other conditions sought to be removed, is overly burdensome and contrary to the standard tests for the imposition of planning conditions, as set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework. This states that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and imposed only where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects.

In the first instance, paragraph 56 of the Framework makes clear that local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions. In this context, given the proposed use of the premises and the potential for crime and anti‐social behaviour, which has been demonstrated during the period when 24‐hour on‐site management was not in place, I am satisfied that the condition renders what would otherwise be unacceptable development acceptable.

Rather than addressing matters that should properly fall under other legislation, I am satisfied that Condition 5 meets the tests established by paragraph 57 of the Framework. It is necessary to address the potential for crime and anti‐social behaviour. It is relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, as both the development plan and the Framework recognise that planning has a legitimate role in seeking to reduce crime and the fear of crime. The condition is enforceable, as compliance can be monitored through observation of activity at the premises, and it is precise, clearly requiring the provision of 24‐hour on‐site supervision by a manned reception. Given the high incidence of crime and anti‐social behaviour that has occurred when such supervision has been absent, the condition is also reasonable in all other respects. It is not reasonable to assert that such activity is inherent to hostel use and that conditions intended to manage and mitigate these impacts could somehow be deemed unreasonable.

The appellant refers to emerging Policy DM7 in the draft Framework published in December 2025, which addresses the relationship between planning and other regulatory regimes. The emerging policy states that planning decisions should not seek to duplicate or extend controls imposed through separate regulatory systems. While this policy is at draft stage and may be subject to change, it also recognises that development proposals should be assessed on the basis of whether they would represent an acceptable use of land. In this case, the proposal before me seeks a use of land whose acceptability is dependent upon the imposition of planning conditions. As such, I do not consider the retention of the condition to be contrary to emerging Policy DM7, insofar as it is relevant to the determination of this appeal.

For these reasons, the proposal to delete Condition 5, or to amend it so that compliance with a revised management plan would replace the requirement for a 24‐hour manned reception, would be contrary to Policies CS14 and CS15 of the [name] and Policy DM20 of the DAP, as well as paragraphs 96 and 135 of the Framework. Removing the condition would result in the loss of continuous on‐site supervision, leading to an unacceptable impact on crime and the fear of crime affecting both residents of the hostel and neighbouring occupiers.

Policies DM10.1 and DM12.3 of the DAP require development to provide safe, convenient, attractive and continuous pedestrian and cycle links to key local facilities and services, as well as adequate drop‐off and collection, servicing and loading facilities. I am satisfied that the likely limited servicing requirements associated with the hostel could potentially be accommodated on‐street, particularly in the context of servicing arrangements for other commercial units on the street which operate in this manner albeit this does impact access to the footway for pedestrians due to clutter and obstruction which I observed on my site visit.

Notwithstanding this conclusion, DAP Policy DM34 is explicit in requiring refuse storage and recycling provision to be an integral part of the development. As such, the on‐street provision proposed by the appellant would be contrary to this policy. Furthermore, on‐street storage would exacerbate harm to the rear laneway in terms of pedestrian access, arising from the cumulative impact of multiple units adopting this approach, which would be unacceptable.

For these reasons, the retention of Conditions 3 and 4 requiring on‐site refuse storage is warranted, as the proposal would conflict with Policy DM34 of the DAP and to ensure that adequate arrangements for the management and storage of refuse are maintained. I also find conflict with Paragraphs 117 and 135 of the Framework which amongst other things seek to address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility and avoid unnecessary street clutter. I am satisfied that the conditions comply with the relevant tests for the imposition of planning conditions set out at paragraph 57 of the Framework. While there may be other regulatory regimes capable of addressing issues arising from refuse storage on the footway, this does not render the conditions contrary to the requirements of paragraph 57, as they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

The appellant contends that the hostel is not financially viable as a commercial enterprise when operated under the management regime required on site, and that the continued imposition of the conditions may result in the closure of the hostel. It is further argued that this would lead to the loss of a form of accommodation which meets an identified need within the community. However, I have not been provided with any substantive evidence to support these assertion and as such they are afforded limited weight in my considerations.

It is submitted that the development has not been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings in a number of respects, and that it has been in operation for over ten years such that the time limit for implementation of the original permission is no longer relevant. These submissions relate to Conditions 2 and 1 of Ref: 2013/1625/01/DET respectively, and the appellant seeks their removal. However, the effect of allowing an appeal under Section 73A would be to grant a new planning permission, rather than to regularise or confirm the lawfulness of the existing development. In that context, it would have been necessarily had I been minded to allow the appeal to retain controls relating to implementation and compliance with approved plans, regardless of the current operational status of the use. Matters concerning whether the original permission was implemented in accordance with its conditions, or whether the development may be lawful through the passage of time, fall outside the scope of this appeal and are not determinative in my consideration of the appeal.

For the reasons given and having considered all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.