Appeal 6005104

The appeal is dismissed.

A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan-making and national decision-making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. No final decisions upon the consultation have yet been announced. Therefore, and for this reason, I afford the Consultation Draft Framework limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issues, I have afforded full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (as amended) (the Framework) and the adopted development plan for the area. In this case, the Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusion below regarding the appeal.

The change of use has already occurred. Therefore, I am considering this appeal on a retrospective basis.

The main issues are i) whether the proposed visitor accommodation would be suitably located when considered against the Southend-on-Sea Development Management Document 2015 (DMD)policies and other guidance, ii) the effect of the loss of a dwelling when considered against policies in the [name] 2007 (CS), and iii) the effect of the development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in respect of noise and disturbance.

Policy DM12 of DMD)states that new visitor accommodation will be focused within the Southend Central Area, [name] area and at locations with good access and a clear and strong relationship with the Seafront. It also states that proposals must relate well to strategic routes, have good public transport accessibility and meet the requirements of other relevant planning policies.

The site is not located close to the Seafront (being about 3.8km away). It is also not located within the [name] or [name] areas and does not have a clear and strong relationship with the Seafront. It is therefore not reasonably located for the purposes of providing visitor accommodation and hence does not accord with the requirements of policy DM12 of the DMD.

The appeal property is a detached, two storey, three bedroom dwelling located on the southern side of [address]. The use of the property as a short term holiday let would have a maximum occupancy of five persons.

Policy CP8 of the CS states that the Council will ‘resist development proposals that involve the loss of existing valuable residential resources, having regard to the limited land resources in the Borough, the need to safeguard an adequate stock of single family dwellinghouses, and to protect the character of residential areas’. In this case, the proposal would result in the loss of a dwelling.

There is a shortfall in the supply of required housing in the borough as detailed in appendix 6 of the Council’s statement of case. Based on the Government’s standard method, and an increased annual supply requirement, the evidence is that the Council cannot demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing sites. In this regard, the loss of the dwelling would exacerbate the housing undersupply position, thereby causing further harm to the availability of the housing stock in the borough. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not accord with the strategic housing objectives of policy CP8 of the CS.

I find that the change of use which is the subject of this appeal has materially altered the pattern and character of activity associated with the property. This relates to the turnover of visitors, its transient nature and hence movement away from a more cohesive community, and its associated transport and pedestrian movements compared to that which would reasonably be associated with the use of the building as a single dwelling.

In forming the above conclusion, I have considered and afforded weight to third-party representations which are consistent in explaining the negative impacts that this short term let has had on their living conditions. They demonstrate that there has been a significant adverse impact from the change of use in relation to noise and disturbance, particularly late at night. As this is a retrospective proposal, these comments are of significance in so far that a ‘trial run’ has already occurred.

I have considered the Guest Management Plan submitted by the appellant. While this may go some way to ameliorating some of the identified adverse impacts, I do not find that it would be likely to avoid the sort of anti-social and disturbance issues that have occurred so far. Indeed, and even with a cap on the maximum number of guests (i.e., five) that can stay at the property, I find that it would be difficult for the owner to realistically enforce the ‘rules’. Moreover, it would not address the day-to-day intensity of the use in terms of noise and disturbance from the use of the property. In this regard, I do not find that the imposition of a planning condition(s) would be sufficient to overcome my concern about the adverse impact of the development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Overall, I find that the more transient use of the property has and would cause material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in terms of noise and disturbance.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal development does not accord with the amenity requirements of policies KP2 and CP4 of the CS, policies DM1 and DM3 of the DMD, the [name] 2009, and paragraph 135(f) of the Framework.

I recognise that the appeal development has some economic benefits. It provides a choice of visitor accommodation and supports visitor spend in respect of local services. However, this has to be weighed against the identified conflict with development plan policies. This is not a matter which alters or outweighs my conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed.

I acknowledge that the Council has approved short term holiday lets elsewhere in the borough. However, such developments were not identical when considered against the above policies. I have determined this appeal on its individual planning merits.

There are no material planning considerations that indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.