A proposal for 14 Priestgate flats in Peterborough has been dismissed on appeal because the homes would not provide acceptable living conditions. The conversion involved a listed townhouse and later additions in the city centre, where the Inspector accepted the heritage effects but found serious problems with space, light, outlook and noise.
Inspector S Simms dismissed appeal 6008850 on 15th October 2026. The application, reference 25/01318/FUL, sought a change of use and associated alterations to create self-contained apartments. This is a planning refusal for a multi-home scheme, rather than a finding that the building must remain permanently out of residential use.
I would take particular care with the distinction between listed building consent and planning permission here. Consent for works affecting a historic building can settle heritage questions without establishing that its proposed homes are suitable to live in. This decision examines the layout residents would actually experience, not simply whether conversion is desirable in principle.
Why the Priestgate flats layout fell short
The site contains a late eighteenth-century townhouse with an attic, later rear infill and a substantial twentieth-century extension added when the building became offices. The unlisted extension has its own entrance, stairs and an undercroft providing rear access to other properties. Those physical relationships constrained the conversion.
The scheme divided the ground floor into four flats, the first floor into six and the two upper floors into four. Proposed gross internal areas ranged from 37 to 62.6 square metres. Only two of the 12 one-bedroom homes exceeded the nationally described space standard for double occupancy, and the appellant suggested occupancy conditions for the others.
The Priestgate flats decision did not apply that space standard as an adopted local minimum. Simms expressly accepted that Peterborough’s Local Plan had not adopted it and that there was no supplementary guidance interpreting the plan’s amenity requirement. The assessment instead considered the combined effects of size, layout and available living space.
There was virtually no outdoor or communal amenity provision. One flat would have a small outdoor area beside the rear access, while the shared undercroft was intended for bins and bicycles. A proposed internal courtyard would be accessible only for maintenance. Nearby public open space and the constraints of city-centre conversion were acknowledged but did not resolve the overall shortcomings.
Noise was also a question of internal design
Some bedrooms would sit beside living areas in other flats. Simms found that noise transmission between homes had not been minimised. The decision explains why this was a planning matter: avoiding sensitive rooms beside noisy rooms depends on the arrangement proposed at application stage and does not merely duplicate building regulation controls.
For the Priestgate flats scheme, the combined result was inadequate noise attenuation and inadequate living, private and communal space. Other nearby conversions did not establish acceptability because their flat sizes, internal relationships and layouts differed, and the Inspector did not have their full details.
There was a separate issue involving a neighbouring restaurant’s kitchen extract. On that point, the Inspector accepted that mechanical ventilation with heat recovery could address noise and odour. A condition could secure installation, maintenance and retention, reducing the prospect of future residents’ complaints restricting the existing business. That issue was not a reason to dismiss the appeal.
A privacy screen would worsen light and outlook
Two bedroom windows would face one another across the new courtyard at a separation of around 3.5 metres. An artificial green screen could protect privacy, and its retention could be secured by a condition. However, the screen would leave both bedrooms with poor light and outlook.
The Priestgate flats assessment identified particular difficulty for Flat 2. Its other main windows would face the undercroft, while a small north-facing glazed door would be hemmed in by the building and a high boundary wall. The lack of communal space compounded those limitations. Privacy treatment therefore did not provide an acceptable overall solution.
That is a useful design lesson for constrained conversions. I would test a screening measure against all the conditions it changes, including daylight and the view from a bedroom. Solving overlooking on a drawing is insufficient if the resulting room is left with an oppressive or poorly lit outlook.
Heritage and housing benefits were not enough
The conservation officer had not objected and the works already had listed building consent. Simms found minimal intervention and no harm to the listed building or its setting, while the conservation area’s character and appearance would be preserved. The reason for refusal should therefore not be presented as a heritage objection.
The Priestgate flats proposal also offered substantial benefits. Peterborough had less than five years’ housing land supply, and the homes would contribute to evidenced need. The Inspector recognised the well-connected station, high density, access to facilities, support for city-centre activity and reuse of a heritage asset.
Those advantages were given substantial weight, but the remaining adverse effects substantially outweighed them. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not “provide adequate living conditions and secure good design”. Conditions could address some matters, including the restaurant-related issue, but could not rescue the whole scheme’s shortcomings.
The complete official decision explains the assessment and dismissal. Our planning appeals guide provides context for the process. For anyone revisiting the Priestgate flats proposal, the practical task is to revisit the layout, usable space and window relationships together, rather than assuming that an existing heritage consent or a housing shortfall answers the residential design questions.
0 Comments