Appeal 6003157

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed use for short term lets is already operating at the property, so I have treated the appeal proposal as being retrospective.

The main issue is the effect of the change of use on the residential character of the area and the living conditions of nearby occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal property is a traditional end-of-terrace house in a residential area, characterised by streets of similar, two storey properties. The houses do not have private drives, and very few have garages, so parking in this area is predominately on-street.

The submitted floor plans show that [site address] (No. 48) has a lounge and kitchen on the ground floor, and a bathroom and four fairly small bedrooms on the first floor. It is likely that a house of this size would typically be occupied by a small household.

The use for which permission is sought has been ongoing for some time, and the appellant says that the average guest count between February and October 2025 was 5.4 persons. This level of occupation is likely to exceed that of an average household in a property of this size, but I must assess the appeal based on the maximum level of use which is sought. To accommodate 7 guests, three of the bedrooms would need to act as doubles, or people would need to sleep in the lounge. Whilst there are no specific guidelines for short term lets, the bedrooms at No. 48 are not generous in size. The house would likely feel crowded if occupied by 7.

If occupied by a single household, there could be multiple comings and goings at any time, with the potential for disturbance to neighbours. However compared with a typical family, there is likely to be a greater level of activity associated with use of the property for 7 guests, including arrivals, departures and visits by cleaners and management. Many trips will involve vehicle use, and this level of activity, involving people who may have little connection to the area and who may not always be considerate to neighbours, has the potential to cause disturbance to permanent occupiers.

As the property is already in use for short term lets, neighbours have direct experience of how it affects their street. From the representations received, some residents have experienced disturbance associated with the use. Concerns raised include people drinking and smoking outside the property, problems associated with bins, and nuisance and damage caused by vehicles parked on the street. Such impacts, and the uncertainty associated with constant change, has the potential to adversely affect the quality of life of nearby residents. Given their lived experience of the use over a reasonable period of time, I give significant weight to these comments in assessing this appeal.

[name] note the appellant’s assertions about the low level of complaints, contradictory comments have been made by neighbours, and I am mindful that there are various reasons why people may not complain, even if they experience disturbance.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has provided a detailed and comprehensive Management Plan for the property. This sets out a wide range of measures aimed at minimising the impacts of the use on the surrounding neighbourhood. Amongst other things, it includes greater operational oversight with guest verification, clear house rules including no parties, alert systems for excess noise within the property, and mechanisms for dealing with complaints with contact information for neighbours. Guests are to be provided with information on refuse management, and vehicles restricted to one per booking.

The Management Plan measures set clear expectations for guest behaviour from the initial booking stage, and would likely assist in encouraging good neighbourliness. Promoting longer length stays may also help to reduce some of the comings and goings associated with arrivals, departures and cleaning. However, some of the measures would be difficult to enforce, such as restrictions on vehicle numbers, and activity outside of the property would be difficult to control. Whilst the Management Plan may satisfy the Environmental Health Officer, the planning system must take a broader view of the impacts on the wider area, and I am not persuaded that it would be sufficient to limit the impacts associated with the use at the intensity sought.

The Council has not objected to the scheme on parking grounds, and I note the appellant’s assertion that many guests do not bring a vehicle. Nonetheless, the property has no dedicated parking, and even a small number of vehicles can take up significant space, particularly if they are large work vans, as noted by local residents. Concerns have been raised about guests parking vans on the pavement, causing restricted visibility for pedestrians, and damage to street trees. I acknowledge that permanent residents may also have large vehicles, but from the comments received it appears that additional vehicle use associated with the use is causing problems in the area.

Overall, I find that the change of use at the scale sought detracts from the residential character of the area, and causes harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers. As a result of noise and disturbance, the scheme prejudices the amenity of the occupants of adjacent properties, so fails to comply with policy L7.3 of the Trafford Local Plan 2012. In terms of its scale, the use fails to respect the character of the locality, and its transient nature fails to promote a sense of community. Consequently, there is conflict with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Plan 2024.

For the reasons given, the scheme fails to comply with the development plan, and there are no material considerations which outweigh the harms I have described, including measures set out in the Management Plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.