Appeal 6003570

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by Leeds City Council against [name]. This is the subject of a separate decision.

I was not met by the appellant during the site visit. Consequently, I was unable to gain access to the first floor of the building. However, I was able to assess the site otherwise, including the building externally as well as the site’s surroundings. The site visit was sufficiently detailed to enable me to make my decision.

Two versions of the ‘Drawings as Proposed’ plan are before me: ‘PL02 [name] and ‘PL02 [name]. Email correspondence dating from September 2025 demonstrates the appellant’s willingness to make amendments to the development with a view of addressing the Council’s objections to it. Despite this, none of the correspondence demonstrates that plan PL02 [name] was attached to an email, and thereby submitted to the Council, during the determination of the planning application. The Council is adamant that it was not. Consequently, the more compelling evidence before me indicates to me that PL02 [name] was the proposed plan before the Council when it made its decision.

In comparison to the proposed plan the Council determined, PL02 [name] omits some front elevation ventilation ducting and depicts the relocation of the proposed children’s play area. The relocation of the children’s play area is a significant one – it would be beside a side elevation of the building rather than the front elevation. Altogether, the changes affect both the development’s layout as well as the extent to which the exterior of the building would change. Consequently, the changes to the development depicted by PL02 [name] are substantial.

The appeal has also been accompanied by a revised noise impact assessment, ‘AS25-52.V2’. The Council based its decision on a previous rendition referenced ‘AS25-52.V1’. Amongst other matters, the revised noise impact assessment refers to the aforementioned ventilation change and relocation of the children’s play area, and a considerably different description of the building’s physical fabric. Again, therefore, the content of the revised noise impact assessment departs considerably from the noise impact assessment the Council determined, and it describes and evaluates a significantly evolved development.

Therefore, proposed plan PL02 [name] and the revised noise impact assessment AS25-52.V2 each present a substantially different development to that which the Council made its decision on. Consequently, I have disregarded both, and my decision is not based upon them.

The main issue is the effect that the development would have on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, having particular regard to the levels of noise and activity which would result from it.

A mix of land and property uses are within the surroundings of the site. Some of them will be likely to generate noise and disturbance at times, including a working men’s club and car garages. However, also within close proximity of the site, on the opposite side of [address], is a row of residential properties.

The noise impact assessment AS25-52.V1 (the NIA) inaccurately describes the physical fabric of the building. For instance, whilst it reports that the building has stone external cavity walls and a Welsh slated roof, it actually has brickwork walls and a sheet metal roof. Furthermore, the building incorporates airbricks within its elevations and single glazed windows at first-floor level facing [address]. Consequently, there are facets of the building’s fabric which lead me to conclude that its sound insulation capabilities have compromises and, moreover, that those capabilities have been inaccurately reported, and exaggerated, within the NIA.

In addition, proposed plan PL02 [name] identifies ventilation ducting at the front and rear of the building. However, in contrast, the NIA only refers to an installation at the front. The NIA appendix 1 also indicates that windows facing [address] will be kept closed with alternative ventilation provided by an air conditioning system. However, no substantive details are provided in respect of the location of any air conditioning units or what their noise generation effects would be, neither are they depicted on the proposed plan.

As a result, given the NIA’s inaccuracies and the deviation between it and the proposed plan, I am not at all confident that the sound break-out and proposed sound level predictions of the NIA, in respect to the range of potential sound sources, are at all accurate.

Furthermore, aspects of the development’s character and layout lead me to conclude that its noise generation would be considerable. Its floorspace would be quite significant – the proposed plan indicating that the restaurant area would seat 72 people and, in addition, there would be a private function room where amplified music would be played.

The children’s play area is proposed beside [address], opposite the row of residential properties, and it would be served by one of the single-glazed windows. The noise from the children playing would be irregular in character with laughter and noisier outbursts likely to occur. The NIA states that the children’s play area would only be used until 5pm. However, given the restaurant use itself is sought to operate until 11pm, I have strong reservations that the play area associated with it would be effectively controlled so that it would only be used during the morning and afternoon periods. For a restaurant use, an 11pm closure is quite typical, nevertheless, it would enable the site to be used, and for its associated noise generation to take place, late into the evening period.

The NIA acknowledges that a construction solution would be unlikely to achieve the required sound reduction of the amplified music. A sound limiting device could be deployed. However, in the absence of accurate sound break-out predictions reflecting the building’s construction, it is unclear that a sound limiting device would result in the necessary balance of the music being loud enough for the function room’s effective use, yet sufficiently quiet when experienced at the nearest residential receptors.

The rationalised car park would include 44 parking spaces. Although most would be to the rear of the building which would help to moderate noise, some are depicted to be opposite the row of residential properties on [address]. In addition, although it is proposed that the development’s customer entrance would only be from the rear after 9pm, there would still be the potential for people to gather, perhaps waiting for taxis or smoking/vaping, in locations close to residential property which would be liable to generate noise. Therefore, the noise associated with the development’s customer arrivals, departures, activity and vehicle movements would contribute further to the development’s overall noise generation. In reaching this view, I have had regard to the appellant’s assurances that the development’s clientele would be respectful. However, customer actions and behaviours are hard to predict and control. Doubtless many will act in a courteous manner. Even so, during the late evening period in particular, noise from the aforementioned activity would be likely to be distinguishable and, thereby, intrusive for nearby occupants.

For these reasons, I find that the development would be likely to generate considerable noise, including late into the evening. Moreover, the evidence before me does not provide me with confidence that the building would be effective at preventing its break-out, nor that effective measures could be deployed to sufficiently mitigate the development’s effects. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that it would be appropriate to rely on conditions relating to noise control and management measures which, in effect and in these particular circumstances, would unacceptably defer the matter of the development’s noise-related impacts to a later juncture.

The appellant draws my attention to a restaurant at [address], asserting that the appeal proposal would have less impact. However, I have very limited information before me in relation to the [address] restaurant, including the circumstances which led to its opening and any mitigation measures which may be deployed. Consequently, I cannot conclude that the circumstances and effects of the cited development are comparable to the case before me. Moreover, I must determine the appeal proposal on its own merits, having regard to its particular site-specific circumstances and the evidence before me. As a result, the cited [address] restaurant is a matter of limited weight in my decision.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the development would result in levels of noise and activity which would unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Consequently, the development conflicts with Policy P10 of the Leeds Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan. Together, in summary and amongst other matters, these Policies set out that development proposals should contribute positively to place making, quality of life and wellbeing, and should protect amenity, avoid pollution and resolve detailed planning considerations.

The development also conflicts with those policies within the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to ensure that developments promote health and well-being, are appropriate for their location taking account of their likely effects on living conditions and health, and which seek to provide for a high standard of amenity. Finally, I also find that the development conflicts with content within the Planning Practice Guidance which advocates the incorporation of good acoustic design within developments and appropriate noise mitigation.

The development would bring a vacant premises back into use, provide the local community with a new facility and add to the area’s service variety and vitality. Alongside this, it would provide some further employment and contribute to the economy. The localised demolition proposed and rationalisation of the car park would provide a very modest improvement to the character and appearance of the site and provide more parking. These factors would be benefits of the development.

In addition, a lift access is proposed for disabled patrons. This would provide the development, and the premises more widely, with improved access arrangements. The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Equality Act) sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. The Equality Act sets out the relevant protected characteristics which includes disability. In dismissing this appeal, the lift would not be delivered. However, it does not follow from the PSED that the appeal should succeed. In my view, the adverse effects of dismissing the scheme on those with protected characteristics would be proportionate having regard to the harm I have identified within my main issue.

Altogether, the benefits of the development are not sufficient to outweigh the harm which would be brought about upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Consequently, it is appropriate and proportionate to dismiss the appeal.

The appellant makes a reference to paragraph 11 d) of the Framework. However, none of the evidence before me indicates to me that paragraph 11 d) is engaged in this case.

Appropriate provision for the disposal of waste, and for limiting odours, could be made, potentially through the imposition of conditions as necessary had I been minded to allow the appeal. The site is within a location with acceptable accessibility credentials, and the development would not result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety. However, an absence of harm in respect of these and other matters is of neutral consequence.

Finally, the appellant draws issue with the manner in which the Council handled the planning application. However, my decision must be based on the planning merits of the case.

I have found that the development would result in levels of noise and activity which would unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. As a result, conflict with certain development plan policies arises, and this leads me to conclude that the development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.