The owners of a North Laine holiday let have lost their appeal after being refused planning permission by Brighton and Hove City Council.
KDS Developments, owned by Darren and Kevin Short, has let out 42 Tidy Street to tourists since 2024, before which the property was a house in multiple occupation.
In March, council planning officials refused the application for the house to operate as a holiday let as it would result in the loss of a residential home.
The council also said a holiday let would be an “over-intensive” use of the site which would cause noise and disturbance to people living in the area.
KDS Development’s agent Lewis and Co Planning submitted the appeal to the Planning Inspectorate in April.
The appeal said the council has registered the address as a commercial holiday let for business rate purposes and removed council tax charges in August 2024.
Another successful appeal to allow a holiday let in Marlborough Mews, Brighton, was submitted as an example of a house being allowed to be used as a holiday let by the planning inspectorate.
It addressed comments made by the 27 objectors that the property is used as a “party house” for up to ten people, causing a disturbance in the street.
The appeal statement said: “The council has no evidence of actual harm. The officer report is based on neighbour allegations, generalised concerns and unverified complaints.
“However, there is no environmental health record of any complaint.”
A supporting letter from holiday let company Host and Stay said there had been no complaints about the property and guests are monitored.
The statement suggested the noise was attributed to the multiple student HMOs, pubs and other city-centre nightlife.
Planning conditions put forward included an occupancy limit, quiet hours, emergency contact and behaviour rules.
Brighton and Hove City Council said even though the wider council was aware of how the property was used, it does not mean planning policy is ignored.
The council said: “Such a stance effectively undermines planning policy and could act as an incentive to carry out unauthorised works, which is somewhat perverse.
“Other services within the council would not investigate lawful planning use of a property every time they are contacted, or are not under any duty to liaise or inform planning, and indeed this would not be workable.”
The council argued the property had only been used as a holiday let for 18 months at the time of the application, which is less time than the Marlborough Mews house cited in the application and appeal.
In their decision the planning inspector (J Davis) said while it is good practice for council departments to work together, failure to do so is not an acceptance that planning policy is met.
The inspector also noted a “significant number” of representations from neighbours, concerned about the high occupancy and noise. The inspector also noted the property does not allow stag or hen parties.
In dismissing the appeal, the inspector said: “I conclude that the appeal scheme has a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular reference to noise and disturbance.
“It is therefore contrary to [council policies] which collectively seek to ensure development does not give rise to material nuisance or cause unacceptable loss of amenity to existing, adjacent or nearby users, residents or occupiers.”
You can guarantee the owners of this property wouldn’t live anywhere near an air B&B like this.