Appeal 6007008

The appeal is dismissed.

[name] note the appeal submissions confirm that the short-term let accommodation use is already taking place at the appeal property, I have removed the words “Retrospective planning permission” from the description in the above banner heading as this does not form part of the development.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal relates to a mid-terrace property located in a high-density, residential area. Within such locations, due to the close relationship between neighbouring properties, the living conditions of occupants are often sensitive to changes in movements and activities, particularly those occurring within adjoining properties.

The appeal proposal seeks consent for the change of use of a dwelling to short-term let accommodation. The appellant states that due to the size of the property and the level of activity associated with the proposed use, it would not be materially different to that of a single, residential dwelling house (Class C3).

However, I find that activities associated with a residential dwelling are largely settled, with generally more consistent and predictable patterns of movements in terms of the comings and goings of occupants as they go about their day-to-day activities.

In contrast, short-term let accommodation is characterised by a higher turnover of occupants, resulting in more comings and goings, with varying arrival and departure times, resulting in a lack of an established routine. Consequently, I find that short-term let accommodation results in a form of occupation that is more transient and materially different in character to that of a residential dwelling.

In this case, I observed that the short-term let accommodation consists of 4no. bedrooms, each containing a double bed. As such, and as detailed within the appellant’s submitted Management Plan, there could be a maximum of up-to eight persons within the property at any time. I therefore consider the regular and frequent turnover and movements of people associated with this four-bedroom short-term let would be more significant and noticeable, when compared to that associated with a property of this size operating as a single dwelling house.

[name] acknowledge that neither party has provided any technical evidence in terms of the levels of noise that would be generated by the appeal proposal, a planning judgement must still be made on the effect of the change of use on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

In this regard, given the mid-terrace nature of the appeal property on what I observed was a quiet residential street, I consider that the change in character and frequency of activities associated with the short-term accommodation use, particularly the comings and goings of occupants, would result in increased noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupants, to the detriment of their living

This would be particularly discernible to the occupants of the adjacent properties either side of the appeal property, and especially the occupants of number [address] due to the positioning of the appeal property’s front door so close to this adjoining property. I find the increased level of movements through this door, as well as the unpredictable nature of these movements due to the lack of an established routine, would be particularly harmful to the occupiers of this adjoining property.

Furthermore, whilst I am cognisant that the appellant states the appeal property is typically occupied by small groups of professionals, rather than holiday parties or high-turnover leisure stays, there is no mechanism before me to ensure that the use operates in this way. As such, I consider that use of the appeal property by groups wanting to experience Leeds City Centre’s nightlife, including comings and goings at unsociable hours, would not be compatible with the general lifestyle and activities of neighbouring residential properties.

I note the appellant has suggested a condition could be attached to restrict the number of occupants to not exceed four at any time. However, such a condition would contradict the submitted Management Plan, which as mentioned above states that the maximum occupancy is eight persons. Thus, the imposition of this condition would create a level of ambiguity in respect of other information provided as part of the appeal submission, particularly given that a condition requiring the use to operate in accordance with the submitted Management Plan would be imposed should I be minded to allow the appeal.

Additionally, I find that the condition suggested by the appellant would not be enforceable due to the transient nature of the use and the frequent turnover of occupants. This would make monitoring of the number of occupants within the appeal property extremely difficult. Furthermore, I consider the reference to occupants is vague in that it is unclear if that relates solely to the individual that has paid for a room, or whether it also includes partners, friends or children that may also stay in the room, or even visitors to the property that do not stay overnight. Given that there is no permanent on-site management, it would be difficult for the appellant to ensure that there is a maximum of four occupants in the property.

As such, I find that a condition restricting the number of occupants to a maximum of four would not be precise or enforceable. It would therefore not meet the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), and the advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance.

As mentioned, the appellant has also provided a Management Plan, which includes measures and actions intended to limit noise and disturbance. These include house rules, check in/out times and contact numbers of the management team which would be provided to neighbouring occupants.

Whilst these measures are acknowledged, they are reliant upon guests adhering to the rules and in circumstances where guests don’t abide by these rules, any management response would likely be reactive rather than preventive, due to a lack of a permanent on-site staff presence. Moreover, and in any case, the measures detailed within the Management Plan would not overcome my concerns with regard to the increased level of noise and disturbance that would arise from the repeated comings and goings of occupants at varying times, which is an unavoidable consequence of short-term accommodation use.

I note the Council has also raised concerns over noise and disturbance arising from additional vehicles. However, given the relatively dense surrounding residential character of the area, I find that any increase in vehicle movements, and any subsequent increase in associated noise, would not be overtly harmful to neighbouring occupiers.

Both parties have drawn my attention to allowed1 and dismissed2 appeals for similar uses within the wider area. However, I do not have all the details before me in respect of these appeals and matters relating to the effect of a proposal upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers are very much site specific. I have therefore determined this appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me and my own observations on site.

Nevertheless, with regard to the allowed appeal referenced by the appellant, having read the decision letter I note3 that it refers to that property having two bedrooms, whereas the appeal scheme before me relates to a four-bedroom proposal. As such, that appeal is not directly comparable to the one before me and this therefore limits the weight I can attribute to it in my determination of this appeal.

In view of all the above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to increased noise and disturbance. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy P10 of the Leeds Local Plan Core Strategy (2019) and saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) where they together seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development protects residential amenity and seeks to avoid problems of loss of amenity. The proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 135(f) of the Framework where it seeks to ensure developments provide a high standard of amenity for existing users. 1 APP/N4720/W/25/3368474 2 APP/N4720/W/23/3330655; APP/N4720/W/24/3340290 & 6002360 3 At paragraph 8

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.