- Decision
- dismissed, 30 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: P Eggleton
- Authority
- Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6011827
- Application reference
- 26/01070/FU
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use from a three-bedroom terraced dwelling (Class C3) to short-term accommodation (sui generis) for up to six guests; the use had already begun
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- P3
- Development plan policies
- Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) GP5, Leeds Core Strategy (as amended 2019) P10
- Main issues
- living conditions of neighbours (noise; disturbance and inconvenience)
Summary
Use of a terraced house in Leeds as a short-term let for up to six guests was dismissed. The inspector found that the level and pattern of activity would harm neighbours, in conflict with saved Policy GP5 and with P3 of the Framework. The economic benefit of the business and the loss of a dwelling were given similar weight and cancelled out.
Issues and findings
- Living conditions, P3: CONFLICT. "I consider it likely that the level of activity would result in unacceptable harm to the residents of neighbouring properties when the property is busy" (DL ¶6). "There would however be conflict with Policy P3 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2026 which requires that development is appropriate to its location, taking into account the likely effects on living conditions" (DL ¶7).
- Management plan. "such a management plan provides only limited assurance; and with regard to issues that arise, would be retrospective and reactive" (DL ¶10).
- Economic benefit against loss of a home. "this has to be balanced against the negative weight … associated with the loss of a dwelling to the housing supply. I afford similarly weight to each" (DL ¶12; the break is a page break).
What made the difference
A terraced house with a short forecourt, six guests and frequent turnovers. Neighbour support, no complaint record and the owner living next door all weighed for the use, but none could be secured for the life of the permission. The loss of one dwelling was treated as a harm of similar weight to the substantial weight given to the business use, so the economic case added nothing. Another Leeds short-term let appeal, decided the day before by a different inspector (PINS-6010211), reached the same result.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| P3 | conflict | comings and goings of up to six guests with frequent turnovers at a terraced house with a short forecourt; management plan gives only limited assurance and is reactive (DL 4-7, 10) | |
| E2 | benefit | substantial | mapped: E2 not named; economic benefits of the business use given substantial weight "with regard to the support for business activity" (DL 12) |
| HO7 | harm | mapped: HO7 not named; loss of a dwelling to the housing supply given negative weight similar to the economic benefit, although the Council has a positive supply figure (DL 12) |
Key facts
- Occupancy table from March 2025; an objector says the use has run for more than three years (DL 3)
- The appellant owns the neighbouring house and manages the property, but a permission runs with the land and common ownership cannot be secured by condition (DL 8)
- No noise report from the appellant; no formal complaints to the Council; a list of supporting residents includes the other neighbour (DL 5, 9)
- No switch paragraph; the letter applies "the National Planning Policy Framework 2026" by policy code (DL 7)
Related decisions
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.