Appeal 6003719

The appeal is dismissed.

During the determination of the appeal, the City of Westminster Council adopted the City Plan Partial Review / City Plan 2019-2040 on 21 January 2026 (the City Plan 2026). This supersedes the City Plan 2021. The Council has confirmed only the number of the policy cited in its Decision Notice has changed, not the wording1. From the information provided, this similarly applies to the policies cited by the appellant in their evidence2. I am satisfied that no prejudice would arise from me taking the relevant policies of the City Plan 2026 into account in my determination of the appeal, and have proceeded on this basis.

The application form states that the ‘work or change of use has ‘already started’ and ‘been completed’3. I observed on site that alterations have been made to the property and each of the four units of accommodation (one on each floor) were occupied. However, I cannot be certain that the changes implemented on site are fully in accordance with the proposal / plans before me. I also note the Council’s submission that the lawful use of the property is as a ‘single-family dwelling’4, which the appellant has not disputed. Therefore and for the avoidance of doubt, I have assessed the scheme on the basis of the description of development as stated in the application form and as shown on the submitted plans.

The appeal property forms part of a [name] listed building known as 6 and [site address] W25, which is located within the Bayswater Conservation Area (the BCA). In determining the appeal, I have exercised the relevant statutory duties under 1 Number change from 8 to 12 ([name]). 2 Number changes from 14 and 15 to 18 and 19 (Town Centres, [name] and the CAZ; and [name], respectively). 3 Albeit with a discrepancy in the dates given. 4 As included in the application form and as stated by the Council in its Statement. 5 National Heritage List for England, [name]: 1236099. sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the housing supply within the area.

The appeal relates to an early 19th century mid-terraced property arranged over three floors plus basement, which is located within the [name] (the CAZ). The proposed change of use from a single-family dwelling to a hotel / boarding / guesthouse would provide short-term accommodation for a maximum of eight visitors.

Policy 12 of the City Plan 2026 concerns [name]. Relevant to the appeal, [name] and D confirm, all existing residential units, uses, floorspace and land will be protected, subject to two exceptions6; and, the change of use of any type of housing to temporary sleeping accommodation on a permanent basis will not be permitted.

The development would result in the loss of an existing residential unit and use that does not meet either of the exceptions in [name]; and the permanent change of this type of housing to temporary sleeping accommodation.

Additionally, although not cited in the Council’s Decision Notice but in its Statement, Policy H9 of the London Plan 2021 (the London Plan) requires boroughs to take account of the impact on housing stock and local housing need when considering applications for a change of use as proposed in this appeal.

Data referenced by the Council relating to housing delivery covers 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23. Whilst the age of the information is acknowledged, it nevertheless highlights what the Council describes as a ‘persistent shortfall’ against its housing targets. In this context, it is reasonable to conclude that safeguarding existing housing stock, of any type, is vital in realising the borough’s housing delivery aims.

Drawing the above together, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the housing supply within the area. This would conflict with [name] and D of Policy 12 of the City Plan 2026, and Policy H9 of the London Plan, as referred to above.

In applying section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan must be read as a whole, rather than treating policies in isolation; and regard must be had to any material considerations. In these respects, the appellant advances the ‘positive’ and ‘strong’ support for the proposal in Policies 18 and 19 of the City Plan 2026 and Policy E10 of the London Plan, which concern 6 Policy 12(C) Exceptions: 1. the reconfiguration or redevelopment of supported or affordable housing would better meet need; or 2. non-family sized housing is being reconfigured to create family sized housing. development within the CAZ, the visitor economy and visitor infrastructure, respectively; and the benefits of the scheme.

The appellant has not directed me to any specific part(s) of Policy 18, but rather cites the, in principle, support the policy provides to the growth and diversification of commercial activities that contribute to the vitality of the CAZ, whilst respecting residential amenity. In these regards, [name] and G are of relevance confirming support in principle to both, the intensification of the CAZ to provide additional floorspace for main town centre uses, subject to the impact on townscape and heritage; and town centre uses throughout the parts of the CAZ with a commercial or mixed-use character, having regard to the existing mix of land uses.

Of relevance in Policy 19 are [name] and [name] confirm that the attractiveness of Westminster as a visitor destination will be maintained and enhanced, while balancing the needs of visitors, businesses and local communities; and that new hotels will be directed to the commercial areas of the CAZ.

[name] and G of Policy E10 are of pertinence. They state that a sufficient supply and range of serviced accommodation should be maintained; and that smaller scale serviced accommodation should be located within the CAZ except in predominantly residential areas, subject to the impact on strategic functions and should be resisted where it compromises local amenity or the balance of local land uses.

The proposed use would be located within the CAZ and support the visitor industry within Westminster. [name] note the representations by neighbours regarding the potential for noise and disturbance arising from the proposed use as serviced accommodation, the Council has raised no concerns in relation to this matter or the balance of local land uses. Given the small scale of the proposal, the lack of any communal entertainment or dining spaces associated with the use and, what appeared on my site visit to be, the mixed use of the area, I have no reason to reach a different conclusion. Additionally, there is nothing before me which indicates that the proposal would impact on a ‘strategic function’.

Taken together, there is clear policy support, in principle, for the type / class of use proposed as part of the appeal, in this location.

On their face, the policies cited by the parties appear to pull in different directions. However, I am not persuaded that, as advanced by the appellant, the development plan contains an ‘internal contradiction’, particularly as none of the policies they refer to appear to provide specific support for the change of use of properties from residential to serviced accommodation within the CAZ. The policies each have their own purpose and address different, albeit overlapping in this particular instance, social and economic planning objectives. I return to this in the planning balance below.

An associated application for listed building consent for works to the appeal property7 was granted on 17 October 2025, subject to conditions. In this regard the Council raised no issues from a heritage perspective to the internal alterations and the installation of two CCTV cameras and a downlighter at front ground floor level. From the information before me, I have no reason to take a different view. I 7 Application Ref: 25/04881/LBC. Internal partition alterations, retention of two CCTV cameras and a downlighter at front ground floor level. therefore find that, in relation to these aspects of the proposal, the special interest of the listed building, and the character and appearance of the BCA as a whole, would be preserved, and the significance of these designated heritage assets would not be harmed. This would comply with the requirements of sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act; the provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment; and the relevant policies of the City Plan 2026.

Even so, it does not follow that an identified lack of harm to significance in the above regards constitutes a benefit in relation to the proposal. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would enhance or better reveal the significance of either of these designated heritage assets. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence before me which confirms that the property’s lawful and historic use as a single-family dwelling, is not viable; or that the listed building would not be maintained and preserved in the long term if the appeal was not successful. Consequently, this carries very little weight in the planning balance.

That there were no objections to the proposal on highways or refuse storage grounds, subject to the imposition of appropriately worded conditions, weigh neither for nor against the appeal.

I am aware of the representations by local residents concerning effects of the CCTV cameras and downlighter on their living conditions, with regard to privacy and lightspill. The Council concluded that any effects on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties would not warrant a refusal on amenity grounds. The submitted evidence does not lead me to a different conclusion. Nonetheless, a finding of a lack of harm in this specific regard is a neutral consideration.

It can be reasonably surmised that the main aims of Policies 18 and 19 of the City Plan 2026 and E10 of the London Plan are to support and grow the borough’s visitor economy; direct visitor accommodation to the most accessible and appropriate areas; and avoid harm to local amenity or the balance of local land uses. Supporting text to Policy 19 confirms the importance of the visitor industry to Westminster’s economy and that the excellent local, national and international public transport connections serving the CAZ means it is an appropriate location for this type of use. In addition, explanatory text to E10 emphasises the importance of supporting infrastructure to the visitor economy, which includes serviced accommodation. I also recognise the Government support for the proposal in respect of building a strong, competitive economy, as set out in the Framework.

The proposed use in an accessible and appropriate area such as this would positively support the visitor economy within Westminster. Having regard to the local and national policy context set out above, but mindful of the small scale of the proposal, this carries considerable weight in its favour.

The application form states that there would be no change to the number of any ‘employees’ arising from the proposed development. Even so, it is reasonable to conclude that it would help to sustain existing local employment in the visitor industry and generate associated economic benefits in terms of visitor spend. However, the extent of these benefits is moderated by the small scale of the provision. I am also mindful that occupiers of a single-family dwelling would generate economic benefits in terms of their ongoing use of local services and facilities. As such, this carries little weight.

The appellant advances as material considerations and benefits, the appeal property’s highly accessible location, that its residential use does not constitute a strategic function and that the impact on local amenity is neutral. Nonetheless, these considerations are accounted for in the proposal’s assessment against, and compliance with, Policies 18 and 19 of the City Plan 2026 and E10 of the London Plan, and should therefore not be double counted as benefits.

In contrast, it is reasonable to conclude that the main aims of Policy 12 of the City Plan 2026 and H9 of the London Plan are to protect the borough’s existing housing supply and deliver new housing; and maintain mixed and balanced communities. Supporting text to Policy 12 is unambiguous in stating that, achieving Westminster’s housing targets is a key priority of the plan, as part of which, all existing housing uses must be protected and existing housing stock safeguarded and remain available for permanent residents (my emphasis). The restrictive nature of the policy highlights the importance of its objectives. I am also mindful of the very strong Government support in relation to delivering a sufficient supply of homes as set out in the Framework; and that in meeting the need for homes in an accessible location, the existing lawful use of the property is fully compliant with the effective use of land as promoted in the Framework.

In terms of the housing supply, the proposal would result in the loss of a single-family dwelling. The lack of harm in relation to local amenity and balance of land uses moderates the weight this loss carries to a degree. Nonetheless, bearing in mind the strong local and national context of protecting existing housing as well as significantly boosting the supply of homes, this loss and the associated policy conflicts carries substantial weight against the proposal.

Reading the development plan as a whole and having regard to material considerations, whilst there is policy support for this use within the CAZ in principle, in this instance, I am not persuaded that it should be at the expense of the existing local housing stock. The scheme’s policy compliance and benefits are, collectively, afforded considerable weight. Nonetheless, they do not outweigh the substantial weight given to the identified harm and associated policy conflicts in relation to a key priority of the City Plan 2026.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.