# 111-115 Grainger Street, Newcastle (first-floor flat by market flue)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Paul Martinson
- **Authority:** Newcastle upon Tyne (North East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6005950
- **Application reference:** 2025/0080/01/DET
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of first-floor staff room and office (Class E) to one flat (C3), with window, ventilation and storage works, in a Grade I listed building
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** P3, P4
- **Development plan policies:** Newcastle Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan CS14, Newcastle Development and Allocations Plan DM23, DM24
- **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers (noise and odour), agent of change
- **Tags:** agent-of-change, living-conditions, noise, flat-conversion, listed-building, heritage-no-harm, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement, tier-2

## Summary
Conversion of a first-floor staff room in the Grade I listed Grainger Market frontage into a flat was dismissed. The bedrooms would face an existing takeaway flue, and the appellant's own assessments showed heavy odour and noise. The proposed mitigation was too vague to show acceptable living conditions or to protect the business from complaints, contrary to P3 and P4. Heritage effects were neutral.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "Any reference to the Framework below is therefore a reference to this new version" (DL ¶2). No consultation mentioned.
- **Living conditions, P3: FAIL.** The odour assessment "detected significant odour presence associated with the flue and determined that this resulted in substantial impacts particularly in relation to proposed Bedroom 1, where the odour was present 90% of the time" (DL ¶13). "there is a lack of detail or clarity over which mitigation methods would be employed and the precise effect on odour or noise ingress" (DL ¶21).
- **Agent of change, P4: FAIL.** "I cannot be certain that the proposal would not place unreasonable restrictions on the operation of the existing hot food business" (DL ¶23).
- **Sealed windows.** "it is difficult to predict the exact behaviour of future occupants who may wish to have windows open for longer periods, including overnight" (DL ¶16).
- **Heritage: NEUTRAL.** The proposal "would have a neutral effect on the listed building" (DL ¶27) and would preserve the conservation area (DL ¶29).

## Planning balance
No S3/S4 balance. The letter concludes on conflict with the local plan and with P3 and P4 (DL ¶24–25) and dismisses (DL ¶33). The one-flat benefit is not weighed.

## What made the difference
The appellant's own evidence of odour 90% of the time at a bedroom window, and no specified, tested fix for the flue. A detailed flue mitigation scheme, agreed with the operator and modelled for noise and odour, would have been needed.

## Transferable points
- Under P4(2)(b), the agent of change must "demonstrate that suitable mitigation can be provided before first occupation"; a list of "potential options" is not enough (DL ¶4, ¶20–21).
- Sealed windows plus MVHR do not answer odour or noise where occupiers can be expected to want windows open (DL ¶16–17).
- Current operating hours are not a safe baseline where licensing allows a future operator to trade later (DL ¶14).

## Policy findings
- **P3: fail.** bedroom windows beside a hot-food flue; appellant's odour assessment found odour 90% of the time at Bedroom 1, noise above WHO limits; mitigation (sealed windows, MVHR, flue works) unclear and unevidenced (DL 10-21, 23, 25)
- **P4: fail.** agent of change; cannot be certain the flat would not place unreasonable restrictions on the existing hot-food business (DL 4, 22-23, 25)
- **HE6: neutral.** Grade I listed Grainger Market east front and Newcastle Central CA preserved; s66(1) and s72(1) satisfied subject to conditions (DL 26-29)

## Key facts
- Rear bedrooms face a tall takeaway flue that curves towards the first-floor elevation, in a dip that traps odour (DL 8, 11)
- Licensing allows the flue to operate until 2300; a future operator could run later hours than the current one (DL 10, 14)
- Mitigation relied on sealed windows with secondary glazing and MVHR, plus undefined flue works by Grampian condition; no condition wording or specification provided (DL 15-21)
- Flue operator's letter gave permission in principle for remedial works, subject to drawings (DL 22)
- Amended plans and new noise and odour assessments accepted at appeal (DL 5)
- Letter notes P3/P4 are similar to 2024 paragraphs 187(e), 198 and 200; comparison only (DL 3)
- No S3/S4 balance run; decided on P3/P4 and development plan conflict (DL 23-25, 33)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005950

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005950.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.