Appeal 6006992

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the use of the property as serviced holiday accommodation at [site address] , Blackpool [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/0653, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings: Location Plan; [name] plans.

Prior to first use, the noise mitigation and sound insulation measures identified in the Noise Impact Assessment Report (Ref: P9156-R1-V1) shall be implemented in full and retained thereafter.

Prior to first use, the [name] dated 4 December 2026 shall be implemented in full and retained thereafter.

The use hereby permitted shall operate in full accordance with the submitted Management Action Plan and shall be adhered to at all times.

The external courtyard area at the rear of the property shall not be used by guests between the hours of 21:00 and 08:00.

The description of development on the application form contains a significant amount of extraneous detail regarding the appellant’s intentions and surrounding facilities. The Council has instead described the proposal as “serviced holiday accommodation”. I am satisfied that this succinctly captures the essence of the proposed development and results in no prejudice to either party. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal, having regard to the loss of a dwelling, on the supply of housing, and whether any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The appeal property is a modest mid-terrace dwelling situated within the defined [name] of Blackpool. It is not in dispute that the proposed use as holiday accommodation would be acceptable in principle in locational terms, having regard to Policy CS21 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 1: [name] (2016). Furthermore, no harm has been identified in respect of living conditions, highway safety, or other technical considerations. I have no reason to disagree. The sole matter in dispute relates to the effect of the loss of the existing dwelling.

The Council accepts that it is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the evidence indicating a supply of approximately 2.4 years. This represents a significant shortfall against the minimum requirement.

Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged where the policies most important for determining the appeal are out of date. In this case, this arises as a result of the identified shortfall in the supply of deliverable housing sites. Given that the effect of the proposal on housing supply is a central issue, policies relating to the provision of housing are among the most important, and these are out of date in this instance.

Although the proposal would accord with policies supporting tourism development, the development plan must be read as a whole. In this respect, there is conflict with the objective of boosting the supply of homes. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged and the appeal falls to be determined in accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the Framework.

The proposal would result in the loss of a single dwelling at a time of acute housing need. This weighs against the proposal and attracts weight in principle. However, the weight to be afforded to that harm must be considered in context.

The appeal property is of modest size, with limited external amenity space and parking. Its characteristics limit its attractiveness as long-term residential accommodation and its contribution to the supply of housing, particularly in terms of meeting identified needs for family housing.

In addition, the site lies on a narrow back street characterised by rear elevations, service areas and boundary treatments associated with surrounding commercial and visitor uses. This gives the street a distinctly secondary, backland mixed-use character and does not present as an attractive or settled residential environment. In that context, the appeal property makes a limited contribution to a high-quality residential environment.

Furthermore, the proposal comprises a change of use only. As such, whilst there would be a loss of a residential unit in use terms, the building could revert to C3 use without the need for planning permission.

Taking all these factors together, I find that the harm arising from the loss of this particular dwelling attracts moderate rather than substantial weight.

Set against this, the proposal would represent an appropriate and compatible use of the building within the [name], consistent with the spatial strategy of the development plan. The proposal would also align with the economic objective of the Framework by supporting the visitor economy and contributing, albeit modestly, to local activity and expenditure.

In addition, it would make effective use of an existing building in an accessible location, consistent with the Framework’s support for efficient use of land and its locational objectives.

The site is within an area where some properties appear underused or vacant, and its active use would contribute positively to vitality, activity and surveillance.

The use would be compatible with its surroundings and would not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the quality of the area or neighbouring amenity, consistent with the aims of the Framework to ensure places function well over time.

Drawing all these matters together, I find that although the loss of a dwelling is harmful in principle, the specific characteristics of the site and the nature of the proposal mean that the harm is limited. In this case, it would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. The proposal therefore represents sustainable development for the purposes of the Framework.

I have noted the concerns raised by local residents, including in relation to noise, disturbance, waste management and parking. A Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted which demonstrates that acceptable internal noise conditions can be achieved through sound insulation and passive ventilation measures. The Council’s Environmental Protection team reviewed the assessment and raised no objection in principle, subject to mitigation and compliance with Building Regulations requirements.

A Management Plan has been provided which includes measures controlling occupancy, guest behaviour, quiet hours and provision of a contact for complaint resolution. Subject to a condition securing its implementation, I am satisfied that neighbouring living conditions would not be unacceptably harmed.

Waste management arrangements are set out within the Management Plan, including use of local recycling hubs and on-site storage. These arrangements are capable of being managed satisfactorily.

The site is highly accessible and no unacceptable highway safety impacts have been identified. Matters relating to parking on [address] are a private matter.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council and have assessed them against the tests set out in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Where necessary, I have amended or omitted conditions in the interests of precision, enforceability and proportionality.

A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty.

I have not imposed a condition restricting the use of the property solely to serviced holiday accommodation or limiting the duration of occupancy. The existing lawful use of the building is residential and such a use would remain acceptable in this location. The acceptability of the proposal does not depend upon preventing the use of the building as a dwellinghouse. Furthermore, any material change to another use would require planning permission. In these circumstances, such restrictions are not necessary to make the development acceptable and would fail the tests set out in the Framework and PPG.

I have not imposed a condition limiting the number of occupants of the accommodation. The property is modest in size and the submitted Management Plan identifies the intended capacity of the property, and the nature of its occupation, including its use by small family groups of typically 2–6 persons. This forms part of the proposal assessed in this decision and provides an appropriate framework for its operation. Furthermore, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the anticipated level of occupation would give rise to unacceptable impacts. In this context, a specific numerical restriction would not be justified and would introduce unnecessary rigidity, particularly where the building is capable of lawful use as a dwellinghouse without such limitation. A separate occupancy condition would therefore duplicate controls already inherent in the proposal and would fail the tests set out in the Framework and PPG.

The Council has also suggested a condition requiring the submission and approval of a Management Plan. In this case, a Management Plan has already been submitted and formed part of the assessment. In the interests of precision and effectiveness, I have instead imposed a condition requiring the use to operate in accordance with the submitted Management Plan. This secures the measures relating to occupancy control, guest behaviour, noise management and waste handling without requiring a further plan to be submitted.

Conditions requiring the implementation of the noise mitigation and ventilation measures identified within the submitted Noise Impact Assessment and [name] are necessary to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and users of the development.

I have imposed a condition restricting the use of the external courtyard area during night-time hours in order to minimise the potential for noise disturbance to neighbouring properties.

I have not imposed additional conditions suggested by Environmental Protection relating to construction practices, contamination, boiler emissions or detailed building specifications, as these are not necessary or are more appropriately controlled through other regulatory regimes, including the Building Regulations. Such conditions would not meet the tests of necessity or reasonableness.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would not result in adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. It therefore represents sustainable development. Accordingly, I shall allow the appeal.