# 22 Ecclesburn Street, Richmond Hill, Leeds (dwelling to short-term let)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Harrison
- **Authority:** Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010211
- **Application reference:** 26/00971/FU
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use from a four-bedroom mid-terrace dwelling to short-term let accommodation; the change of use had already taken place
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** P3, DM6
- **Development plan policies:** Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) GP5, Leeds Core Strategy (as amended 2019) P10
- **Main issues:** living conditions of neighbours (noise and disturbance)
- **Tags:** tier-2, short-term-let, living-conditions, noise, retrospective, conditions-unenforceable, plan-led, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
Use of a mid-terrace house in Richmond Hill, Leeds as a short-term let was dismissed. The transient pattern of occupation would disturb neighbours in a dense and relatively quiet street, contrary to local policies GP5 and P10 and to P3 of the Framework. Conditions limiting guest numbers or securing the management plan would not meet the DM6 tests.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "Since the appeal was submitted a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect, but there are no material changes in policy emphasis relevant to the substance of the appeal" (DL ¶2).
- **Living conditions, P3: CONFLICT.** "The proposal would therefore not be appropriate for its location, taking into account the likely effect on living conditions which Framework Policy P3 seeks to avoid" (DL ¶8).
- **Conditions, DM6: FAIL.** "As such a condition to restrict occupation to six guests would not be reasonably capable of being complied with and enforced and would fail to meet the tests set out in Framework Policy DM6" (DL ¶6).

## What made the difference
The inspector treated guest numbers and behaviour as beyond the operator's control, so neither an occupancy cap nor the management plan could be relied on. With no enforceable control, the harm to neighbours stood. A second Leeds short-term let appeal decided the next day by a different inspector (PINS-6011827) reached the same result.

## Policy findings
- **P3: conflict.** frequent guest turnover, cleaning visits and use of a small yard in a dense, relatively tranquil terraced street; not appropriate for its location (DL 5-8)
- **DM6: fail.** a condition capping occupation at six guests could not reasonably be complied with or enforced; nor could one limiting occupiers to young professionals, or one securing the management plan (DL 6, 9)

## Key facts
- Management plan gives a broad arrival window; the appellant's response to problems would be reactive (DL 5, 9)
- Accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport is undisputed and treated as neutral (DL 11)
- Switch paragraph says there are no material changes in policy emphasis relevant to the appeal; no consultation is recorded (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010211

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010211.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.