Appeal 6004705

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner heading above, I have used the Council’s description of development as stated on the decision notice for the purposes of accuracy. I have removed the reference to the development being retrospective.

The change of use has already taken place, and I note that the application had been submitted retrospectively. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal scheme on the supply of housing.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling within a mews development largely arranged around a private access with a shared parking area, located between [address] and [address]. The dwelling comprises a living area and kitchen at ground floor, with three bedrooms at first floor level. There is a courtyard garden to the rear, along with an allocated parking space adjacent.

Policy DM2 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part 2 adopted 2022 (Local Plan) seeks to resist any net loss of existing residential accommodation. It sets out a series of exceptions, none of which would be met by the proposal. The policy is delivered in the context of a constrained housing supply, together with the need to make the best use of available properties. The Council indicate that they have a housing land supply equivalent to [site address] .4 years, underlining the need to maintain the existing housing stock.

The appellant indicates that if the appeal property were not in use as a holiday let, it would be maintained as a second home, the net result being that the house would not contribute to maintaining the city’s permanent housing stock. Even if the dwelling were to be used as a second home, it would retain its use under Class C3 and would be capable of contributing to the Council’s permanent housing stock if it were sold on or rented out. By changing the use to sui-generis visitor accommodation, the building would not be capable of being occupied as a permanent dwelling without the need for further planning permission and would be lost to the city’s housing stock.

In conclusion on the main issue therefore, the proposed change of use would result in the loss of a Class C3 residential dwelling from the city’s stock of permanent housing which would be harmful to the supply of housing. This would conflict with Policy DM2 of the Local Plan which seeks to resist any net loss of existing residential accommodation.

I have had regard to other matters raised including, but not limited to, the effect of the proposals on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, risk of anti-social behaviour, litter, effect on the nearby conservation area and changes in character to the neighbourhood. [name] am dismissing the appeal on the main issue for the reasons given above, I have not pursued these matters further.

Set against the harm identified, the use of the building as a sui-generis holiday let would have economic benefits through local spend from the visitors. The holiday accommodation would contribute to the range and type of visitor accommodation within an established tourist destination. The appellant notes an electric vehicle charging point is to be added to the dwelling. Given the limited scale of development, I attach limited weight to these benefits.

Given the pressing need for housing within the city, I do not consider the limited benefits set out above would outweigh the harm to the supply of housing caused by the proposed use.

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. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.