Appeal 6002870

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development refers to a change of use from Class C3 residential to short-term holiday letting/commercial use (sui generis). However, the appeal submissions make clear, and it is not disputed, that the proposed change of use relates only to the existing first and second floor flats, with the ground floor flat remaining in residential use. Furthermore, the application form confirms that the change of use has already been implemented, and I was able to see this at my site visit. I have therefore considered the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal development on the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour.

The appeal site lies within a short residential cul-de-sac of a settled residential character. The appeal development involves the use of two self-contained flats for short-term letting purposes.

The appellant contends that the use would be indistinguishable from ordinary residential occupation, pointing to the average length of stays and the nature of occupants. However, the evidence shows that there were 54 separate lettings over a 56-week period. Even where some individual stays extended over several weeks, this equates to a frequency of change materially greater than would ordinarily be expected from Class C3 residential use, where occupants typically reside for far longer periods.

In my judgement, the regular turnover of occupants, unfamiliarity with neighbours and the absence of any long-term stake in the area would be likely to give rise to a pattern of comings and goings, noise and general activity that differs materially from that associated with conventional residential occupation. This assessment is corroborated by consistent representations from neighbouring residents, which describe repeated instances of disturbance and behaviour that they indicate did not occur under the previous use of the flats.

While the appellant places weight on management arrangements and the presence of a ground-floor occupant fulfilling the role of caretaker, these measures are inherently reactive and cannot reasonably be relied upon to prevent disturbance before it arises. Moreover, the occupation of the ground-floor flat is not guaranteed and could not be secured through any reasonable condition. Accordingly, these matters attract limited weight.

I note that the appeal development would not result in a reduction in on-site parking provision and, in numerical terms, I find no harm to highway safety. However, based on the evidence, including my site visit, on-street parking availability within this short residential cul-de-sac is limited. In that context, the irregular arrival and departure patterns associated with the appeal use, together with guests’ unfamiliarity with the area, can reasonably be expected to give rise to inconsiderate parking and associated disturbance. While this does not amount to a highway safety objection in its own right, it contributes to the wider pattern of disruption experienced by neighbouring residents and reinforces my conclusion that the appeal development causes unacceptable harm to residential amenity.

The appellant’s argument that harm must be demonstrated through formal enforcement records or other statutory action misrepresents the role of planning judgement. Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) (UDP) seeks to avoid development that would result in loss of amenity or environmental intrusion, including impacts that are likely to occur. In this case, the retrospective nature of the appeal and the evidence before me demonstrate that such harm has already arisen.

For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal development causes unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties, contrary to Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (Review 2019) and Policy GP5 of the UDP, which seek, among other things, to protect residential amenity and avoid environmental intrusion.

As the appeal site is within the Roundhay Conservation Area (the CA), I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. In this case the significance of this CA relates to the historic layout and buildings associated with the residential and communal development of the Roundhay Park character area of the CA. As the appeal development is for the change of use of part of the appeal building it would remain substantially unchanged in appearance and would therefore have a neutral effect on the area. As such, the appeal development would preserve the character and appearance, and thereby the significance of the CA.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.