- Decision
- dismissed, 1 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: T Burnham
- Authority
- Manchester (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6008018
- Application reference
- 144279/FO/2025
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of the first floor of a vacant public house (sui generis) to a six-bedroom guest house (Class C1) with staff accommodation
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- DP3, S4(1)
- Development plan policies
- Manchester Core Strategy CC4, DM 1, T 2, SP 1, Manchester Unitary Development Plan saved DC4.1, DC1, DC26
- Main issues
- principle of visitor accommodation; living conditions; parking and highway safety
Summary
A six-bedroom guest house on the first floor of a vacant Manchester pub was dismissed. The application left out the ground floor, so the only access was through a rear yard past the bins and up a narrow stair. The inspector found the scheme was not shown to be deliverable or of the quality the local visitor-accommodation policies require, treated that as a conflict with DP3, and found the benefits substantially outweighed under S4.
Issues and findings
- Plan weight, Annex A ¶2. "Policy CC4 of the CS and policy 4.1 of the UDP are not materially inconsistent with the national decision making policies within the Framework" (DL ¶11), "as they are policies which seek to assist in creating well designed places, which is a key principle of Framework Policy DP3" (DL ¶11).
- Principle: CONFLICT. "I cannot be assured that the accommodation as a whole would be of an appropriate quality or offer good ease of access for all" (DL ¶16).
- Living conditions and parking: acceptable. "There is nothing compelling to indicate that any, likely limited, increased parking demand in association with this proposal would cause any unacceptable additional parking stress or cause harm to highway safety" (DL ¶25).
- DP3 and S4: FAIL. "There would be conflict with Policy DP3 and the benefits of approving the scheme would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶31).
Planning balance
S4(1). For: reuse of a vacant building, some employment, support for tourism (DL ¶28). Against: "serious doubts over the design quality of the scheme before me" because access for all is not assured (DL ¶29). The DP3 conflict is derived from "development plan policy relating to the design standards for this type of accommodation with regard to access" (DL ¶31). DP3(3) is not cited and no clear-justification question is asked.
What made the difference
The red line and description. By excluding the ground floor, through which the first floor must be reached, the scheme could not show a workable or good-quality access. An application covering both floors with a proper entrance would have met the main objection.
Transferable points
- Local policies on the quality of visitor accommodation were held not materially inconsistent with the Framework, by reference to DP3, and kept full weight (DL ¶11).
- A conflict with a local standard on access quality was treated as a DP3 conflict and weighed in the S4 balance (DL ¶31).
- A scheme whose access depends on land or floorspace outside the application is not shown to be deliverable (DL ¶14, ¶29).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3 | conflict | conflict with development plan policy on design standards for visitor accommodation - access only by a rear gate, a yard beside the bins and a narrow stair; no clear-justification question asked (DL 16, 29, 31) | |
| S4(1) | fail | S3 and S4 noted; benefits substantially outweighed by the adverse effects (DL 30-31) | |
| Transitional(2) | accord | CS CC4 and UDP 4.1 "not materially inconsistent" with the Framework, as they help create well-designed places, a key principle of DP3 (DL 11) | |
| TR6 | pass | mapped: Framework not cited; limited parking demand, no unacceptable parking stress or highway safety harm; highway authority content (DL 22-26) |
Key facts
- The application covers the first floor only; the appellant says the ground floor has a "nil" use, yet the first floor can only be reached through it (DL 3-5)
- CS CC4 supports hotels outside the city centre only where the Council is confident they are deliverable; deliverability not certain here (DL 13-14)
- Bus stops and the Central Park Metrolink stop within a 10 minute walk (DL 24)
- No harm to neighbours' living conditions from comings and goings in a largely commercial area (DL 18-21)
- Costs application by the appellant against the Council, the subject of a separate decision (DL 2)
- No switch paragraph; the Framework is identified in a footnote as the 2026 version (DL 11)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.