A house cannot be used as a holiday let after the owner was refused planning permission on appeal.
Brighton and Hove City Council refused an application from Russell King, from Kent, to make his family’s second home, at 1 Marlborough Mews, into a holiday let, stating that there was “no justification for the loss of a residential dwelling”.
Mr King said in his appeal that he bought the semi-detached house as a second home for his family and had been letting it on a short-term basis when they were not there.
Mr King said that allowing the property to be used as a short-term holiday let benefited Brighton and Hove’s economy, with occupiers spending in the local shops, cafés and other attractions.
But without planning permission, Mr King said that the house would remain as his family’s second home, with the occasional short-term let within permitted limits and would not add to the city’s housing stock.
Mr King said: “I respectfully submit that the proposed change of use would have no detrimental impact on residential housing supply, would address local amenity concerns and would deliver tangible economic and social benefits to the local community.
“The application is therefore consistent with the overall objectives of the development plan and should be granted permission on appeal.”
The application prompted 24 objections from neighbours and Green councillor Chloë Goldsmith, who represents Regency ward where the house is located.
Councillor Goldsmith said: “Changing the use of this property from housing for local residents to a short-term holiday let would only serve to exacerbate the housing shortage and high rents we are already seeing in the city centre.
“We need more housing available for local residents, especially properties suitable for families, so to remove a three-bed property that could otherwise be on the rental market or for sale would not be appropriate.”
The planning inspector ruled that if the house was rented or sold, it would form part of the housing stock in the area.
The inspector said: “Set against the harm identified, the use of the building as a sui-generis holiday let would have economic benefits through local spend from the visitors.
“The holiday accommodation would contribute to the range and type of visitor accommodation within an established tourist destination.
“The appellant notes an electric vehicle charging point is to be added to the dwelling.
“Given the limited scale of development, I attach limited weight to these benefits.
“Given the pressing need for housing within the city, I do not consider the limited benefits set out above would outweigh the harm to the supply of housing caused by the proposed use.”
Good, I am glad this greedy person was denied. The only reason they would want to change what was blatantly designed to be a family home is because they’d make more money from it as a holiday let.
Stories like this remind me why England needs regulation of the STL sector, in terms of the amount available in the area, and ensuring they are of a satisfactory standard. The sector has gotten away with it for too long, and demonstrated clearly that they cannot self-regulate, in my opinion.
It’s not as if Brighton is short of holiday accommodation! Common sense prevails. Hope that a costs order was made as well?
There is a lot of jealous people about ,
There is also a lot of people who can’t afford to live here only due to the greed of other people.
There’s a big difference between renting out full time and holiday lets which does not house people on a permanent basis, holiday lets are NOT a benefit to any community. only to the individual.
I agree its jealousy, crab in a bucket syndrome .
Its his house he worked for it he shoukd be able to do what he wants with it .
It was nice of him to try and bring social benefits to the community through holiday lettings. He is all heart