Case Reference: 3354948

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 27 February 2025
by M Cryan BA(Hons) DipTP MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 21st May 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/W/24/3354948
44 Lambert Road, London SW2 5BE
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of
Lambeth.
• The application reference is 24/02724/FUL.
• The development proposed is the use of the premises as a large HMO with 11 units.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary and Procedural Matters
2. The appeal development was described on the planning application form as
“retrospective permission for using the premises as a large HMO with 11 units”. I
have used a slightly amended wording based on this in the banner heading above
as the phrase “retrospective permission” is not in itself a description of
development.
3. The scheme was subsequently described on the Council’s decision notice as “the
change of use of the premise from a single dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a
large house in multiple occupation (HMO) with 11 rooms (sui generis), including the
provision of refuse and cycling facilities”. The appellant asserts that the property
has been in use as an HMO since 2013, and has therefore objected to the use of
that description.
4. Within the context of an appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 it is not within my remit to formally determine whether a
particular use has already been established as claimed by the appellant (though I
also note the appellant’s comment during the appeal that the planning application
was not intended to retrospectively establish as lawful the use of the property as a
large HMO). It is open to the appellant to apply to have that matter determined
under section 191 of the Act, and any such application would be unaffected by my
determination of this appeal. I have considered the appellant’s evidence relating to
the previous use of the property so far as it is material to this appeal at relevant
points of my reasons below.
5. It is also of relevance that the appeal property is not subject to a Direction under
Article 4 of the GPDO1 which would restrict changes of use from Use Class C3 to
Use Class C4, nor has the Council indicated that it has any plans to introduce such
a Direction. If such a change has not already taken place, the evidence before me
is that under the provisions of Part 3, Class L of the GPDO the property could
1 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)
lawfully be used as a Class C4 “smaller” HMO. This is a significant material
consideration in this appeal, to which I also return below.
6. Notwithstanding the appellant’s objection, the different wording used by the Council
reflects the full scope of the scheme which, as well as the use of the property as a
large HMO, includes the provision of refuse and cycle storage facilities at the front
of the building. The Council dealt with the proposal on that basis, and so shall I.
Main Issues
7. The decision notice issued by the Council gave four reasons for which it had
refused planning permission. The third and fourth of these related to the provision
of cycle parking, matters related to car parking permits, and support for sustainable
travel. I have dealt with those matters as a single issue in my analysis below, as
there is a considerable degree of crossover. The main issues in this appeal are
therefore:
• Whether the use of the appeal property as a larger HMO would be acceptable in
terms of its effect on housing supply and the housing mix in the borough;
• Whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for all
occupiers, with particular regard to the adequacy of kitchen, toilet and bathroom
facilities; and
• Whether the development would adequately promote sustainable means of
travel, and mitigate its effects on the surrounding highway and transport
networks.
Reasons
Housing supply and mix
8. The appeal relates to a large semi-detached property, on the north side of Lambert
Road in a predominantly residential area, which has living accommodation on three
floors. It was evidently built as a single dwellinghouse, but permission is now
sought for its use as a “larger HMO” with eleven bedrooms.
Loss of self-contained C3 housing
9. Policy H3 of the 2021 Lambeth Local Plan (“the LLP”) states that “existing self-
contained C3 housing will be safeguarded in accordance with London Plan policy”,
but that “exceptionally, the net loss of self-contained residential accommodation
may be acceptable where the proposal is for specialist non-self-contained
accommodation (Use Class C2) to meet an identified local need in accordance with
the requirements of [LLP] Policy H8”.
10. It is the appellant’s position that the property has been in use as an HMO for some
time, first as a small HMO within Use Class C4, then as a larger sui generis HMO,
and that the change of use would not therefore lead to the loss of self-contained
housing within Use Class C3. The Council’s contention is that the property should
still be treated as a C3 dwellinghouse, as there has been no formalisation, in
planning terms, of any change of use of the property from a single dwellinghouse.
11. The appellant submitted declarations in the names of three tenants, each of whom
stated that they had lived in the property since 1 May 2013, and that it has been
used as an 11-unit HMO since that date. The Council commented in its appeal
statement that it had been advised by one of the tenants that they had “not signed
the statutory declaration form, nor [had] they ever met the Solicitor stated on the
form”; in response to this the appellant suggested that it is “procedurally unfair” to
introduce this claim during the appeal, and that it would be unreasonable to dismiss
a statutory declaration on the basis of an unsubstantiated conversation. It is not
open to me to interrogate this matter further when determining this appeal by
written representations, so although the point was not substantively rebutted by the
appellant, I cannot give the Council’s observation in respect of the declarations
significant weight.
12. At the same time, however, the certainty of the declarations both in terms of the
date and scale of the use is at odds with the significant vagueness introduced by
the appellant2 that “the property has been operating as an HMO for over 11 years,
first as a small HMO (C4) and later as a large HMO (Sui Generis)” (my emphasis
both times); that comment suggests that any change which may have occurred
could have taken place rather later than May 2013. I therefore give limited weight to
the declarations themselves, though in doing so I cast no aspersions on the
signatories.
13. An “Additional HMO Licence” for the property was issued by the Council on 24 July
2024, covering the period until 25 January 2026. This is under a borough-wide
scheme applying to any property occupied by three or more individuals that is not
captured by mandatory HMO licensing. No further information about that licence –
including the number of bedrooms or bedspaces it provides for – has been put
before me but, as the Council pointed out, the granting of an HMO licence would
not negate the need to obtain planning permission for a larger HMO.
14. In the light of the uncertainty described in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, as well as
the background I have set out in paragraph 4, I am not persuaded that the appeal
property should be treated as already being in lawful use as a larger sui generis
HMO, insofar as it is necessary for me to consider that matter to determine this
appeal. There is, however, a body of evidence indicating that it is reasonable that it
should, again at least as far as this appeal is concerned, be treated as being a
Class C4 “smaller” HMO. The appeal development would not therefore lead to the
loss of self-contained C3 housing, and there would be no conflict with Policy H3 of
the LLP on this matter.
Provision of new HMO accommodation
15. Policy H9 of the LLP states that proposals for new HMOs will be supported where it
is demonstrated that, among other things, it would “not result in the loss of housing
suitable for occupation by families”, and where it “would meet an identified local
need”. On my reading, the supporting text to that policy implies that it should be
applied where changes between “smaller” C4 and larger sui generis HMO uses are
proposed. Given the impacts which may arise from an intensification of an existing
HMO use, it seems to me reasonable that it should be applied in this case.
16. The submitted “pre-existing” plans show the property with a bedroom, two (linked)
kitchens, two living rooms and a bathroom on the ground floor; three bedrooms, a
living room, and a bathroom on the first floor3; and two bedrooms, and a living
room on the second floor. The phrase “suitable for occupation by families” is
2 At final comments stage during the appeal; those comments are dated December 2024.
3 As well as a further small space simply labelled as a “room”.
distinct from the “self-contained C3 housing” wording used in Policy H3. The “pre-
existing” layout, with lounges on all three floors, is more in keeping with what I
would expect to find in a C4 smaller HMO than in a single family dwelling. However,
the lounges on the first and second floors could presumably also serve reasonably
easily as bedrooms (as indeed they would in this appeal scheme); the layout would
not, on the face of things, rule out the property providing suitable living
accommodation for a single family, albeit that would be a family with very significant
space requirements. The property in its “pre-existing” condition would also comply
with the definition of a “family-sized” home set out in the LLP4.
17. The supporting text to Policy H9 says that “to demonstrate that a proposal is
meeting an identified local need, reference should be made to the Lambeth
Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2017 (“the SHMA”), the Lambeth Housing
Strategy and associated Lambeth strategies for individual client groups, and to
Lambeth’s strategy for commissioning accommodation to meet the needs of
specific client groups in the borough”. The appellant notes that the SHMA identifies
HMOs as a crucial source of housing for single-person households within the
private rented sector”, and that the property has “consistently provided suitable
accommodation for single tenants”, though in my professional experience the fact
that people have been willing or able to rent any particular accommodation is not
necessarily going to be a reliable indicator of it being suitable or acceptable in
planning terms. In any event, none of these arguments demonstrates that the
appeal scheme would meet an “identified local need”.
18. My attention was drawn to a 2021 appeal relating to a “smaller” C4 HMO in
Barnet5, in which the Inspector considered that the provision of evidence of signed
tenancy agreements, and its use by students “for some time”, was an acceptable
demonstration that it would meet local need. However, other than the three
declarations referred to above, there is little similar documentary evidence before
me in this case. Furthermore, this other appeal is in a different borough on the
other side of London, with different development plan policies and different local
need; my colleague found the Barnet scheme would meet a particular identified
need for student housing, while there is nothing to indicate that the proposal before
me would meet any specific needs in Lambeth. Given these considerations, the
Barnet appeal decision carries only limited weight in favour of this appeal scheme.
19. The appeal development would lead to the loss of a property suitable for
occupation by a family, and it has not been demonstrated that it would meet an
identified local need in the terms required by Policy H9 of the LLP. There would
therefore be conflict with provisions A.i. and ii. of that policy.
Findings on this main issue
20. For the reasons I have set out above, I conclude that the development would not
lead to the loss of a self-contained C3 dwelling, so there would be no conflict with
Policy H3 of the LLP. At the same time however, the loss of a property suitable for
family occupation, and the failure to demonstrate that the proposed sui generis
HMO would meet an identified local housing need, means that there would be
conflict with Policy H9 of the LLP.
4 The supporting text to Policy H6 of the LLP says that this means “houses, purpose-built maisonettes and duplex dwellings with
ground-floor access to a rear garden, with three or more bedrooms”.
5 PINS Ref: APP/N5090/W/20/3261065
21. If the Council’s view that the property should be treated as still being a Class C3
dwellinghouse is correct, there would also be conflict with Policy H3 of the LLP.
However, the fact that the property could lawfully be used as a C4 HMO without
needing planning permission is a fallback position for the appellant, and a material
consideration which in my view would overcome and outweigh any conflict with
Policy H3 on this matter.
22. The present or potential lawful use of the property as a C4 HMO is also relevant to
the conflict with parts A.i. and ii. of Policy H9 which are, effectively, dealing with
matters relating to the principles of establishing or enlarging HMOs. While I have
found conflict with those provisions, the actual practical implications of the appeal
scheme in those respects would be modest. The appeal property may be suitable
for use as family housing, but it is not used as family housing, and there is nothing
before me to indicate that in the event of my dismissing this appeal there is any
realistic prospect of it actually being returned to use as a single family dwelling.
Similarly, while it has not been demonstrated that the housing which would be
provided would meet a specific local need, it would still contribute to meeting
general housing need in the area. There is also nothing before me to suggest that
the development would lead to a harmful overconcentration of HMO
accommodation in the area, or that it would cause harm to neighbours’ living
conditions, or to the character of the area. I conclude that these considerations
would be sufficient to overcome and outweigh the conflict with parts A.i. and ii. of
Policy H9 of the LLP.
23. Part A.iii. of Policy H9 requires that HMO accommodation is suitable for the
intended occupiers in terms of the standard of facilities. Parts A.v. and vi. relate to
an HMO development’s provision of car and cycle parking, and its effects on traffic
congestion and transport. In the light of my findings on this main issue, my overall
conclusion in this appeal is dependent on my assessment of these matters, which I
address in the following sections.
24. I find no conflict with Policy H8 of the London Plan 2021, which seeks to ensure
that any housing lost is replaced by new housing at existing or higher densities with
at least the equivalent level of overall floorspace. Although that policy was referred
to in the Council’s decision notice, nothing was put before me to explain where any
such conflict might arise in this case.
Living conditions
25. The Council’s concerns in respect of living conditions, as set out on the decision
notice, related to the provision of kitchen space, bathrooms, and WCs, as well as
the absence of a management plan for the property. My attention was drawn to its
July 2024 HMO Standards document (“the SD”). While the SD is not part of the
development plan it provides useful advice as to the facilities required in an HMO,
and therefore as to how Part A.iii. of Policy H9 of the LLP should be interpreted. In
referring to the SD, I have concentrated on its requirements for “bedsit type
accommodation”, as they reflect the appellant’s stated intentions in respect of this
development.
26. The submitted plans show only one room in the property specifically identified as a
kitchen, a 5.8m2 space with units including a sink and a four-ring hob, accessed
from Bedroom 3 on the ground floor. The Council considered both the size of the
kitchen and its access to be inadequate to serve as a communal facility, having
regard to the “shared houses and flats” requirements of the SD. The appellant in
turn describes this as a clear misinterpretation of the plans, stating that all 11 units
would be self-contained with private kitchenettes, and that the separate kitchen off
Bedroom 3 would be exclusive to that unit.
27. The submitted drawings and other evidence do not make it clear that residents
would have adequate cooking facilities. The minimum requirement set out in the SD
for a single-person room is a cooker with two burners, an oven and a grill. While
each bedroom6 is shown having an area of units and worktops with what appears
to be a sink, those areas are not labelled as “kitchenettes”. The only hob shown on
the drawings is the one in the separate kitchen off Bedroom 3, so the Council’s
interpretation is understandable. It is not clear where or how occupiers of the other
rooms would be expected to cook or heat food. The area of units and worktops in
some of the rooms (notably Bedrooms 4, 5 and 9) appears to be so small that it is
doubtful if they would be able to accommodate some form of cooker while still
leaving adequate space for even a single person to prepare food and so on. Based
on the application plans, I consider the Council’s concerns about the adequacy of
kitchen facilities to be well-founded.
28. Turning to personal washing facilities and sanitary provision, the SD requires that
HMOs for 11 to 15 residents should provide at least three bathrooms or shower
rooms, and at least three WCs (two of which should be separate from the
bathrooms). The appeal scheme includes two bathrooms with toilets, and only one
self-contained WC. This level of provision would be inadequate to meet the needs
of the occupiers of an 11-room HMO.
29. The appellant has suggested that the shortfall in bathroom and WC provision could
have been addressed through minor amendments or conditions. No amended
plans are before me, though it is of course open to the appellant to submit a revised
scheme following my decision if they wish. I am not persuaded that it would be
appropriate to seek the provision of additional bathroom and WC space by use of a
condition – this would of necessity lead to a reconfiguration of the internal space
within the property, with some attendant risk that the letting bedrooms would be
adversely affected. The provision of living accommodation to a high standard, and
with a high standard of cooking and washing facilities, is fundamental to whether or
not an HMO scheme would be acceptable in planning terms; in my view it is not
therefore a matter to deal with through a condition following a grant of planning
permission.
30. On the other hand, I have not been directed to any development plan document,
supplementary planning document, or other guidance which indicates that the
submission of an HMO management plan is a fundamental planning consideration
for all HMO developments. While it is important that HMOs are well-managed, it is
notable in this case that the Council’s concern about the absence of a management
plan was expressed in general terms, rather than because of any specific matter
which it considered needed to be addressed. This is therefore a matter which, were
the proposal acceptable in all other respects, could have been dealt with by a
condition requiring the submission and approval of a management plan. However,
this would not address my other concerns.
6 Other than Bedroom 3, which has the self-contained kitchen already described.
31. I conclude that, because of shortcomings in respect of kitchen, toilet and bathroom
facilities, it has not been demonstrated that the development would provide
acceptable living conditions for all occupiers. The scheme therefore conflicts with
Policy H9 of the LLP, which requires that HMOs are suitable for the intended
occupiers in terms of the standard of facilities, and with Policy D6 of the London
Plan 2021, which (among other things) requires housing development to be of high
quality design with comfortable and functional layouts which are fit for purpose.
Sustainable travel and transport
32. Policy T3 of the LLP requires the provision of appropriate secure and covered cycle
parking facilities in accordance with the standards set out in Policy Q13 of the LLP
and Policy T5 of the London Plan 2021. Policy T5 requires the provision of a long-
term bicycle space for each one-bedroom unit, plus two short-stay spaces for
visitors. The appeal scheme includes a proposed storage enclosure, which would
accommodate up to four standard bicycles – this provision would fall short of the
requirement whether considered in absolute (i.e. as an 11 unit scheme) or relative
(i.e. an increase of five units from an assumed six room C4 HMO) terms. Policy
Q13 goes on to say that, where intensification is proposed, the Council will consider
the removal of on-street car parking in favour of a shared cycle store (such as a
“cycle hangar”), the cost of such provision to be borne by the developer.
33. The appeal property has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (“PTAL”) of 4, which
represents good public transport connectivity. It is within the Brixton Hill (E)
Controlled Parking Zone (“the CPZ”). The combined effect of Policy T6 of the LLP
and Policies T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan 2021 is that development in areas of
Lambeth with a PTAL of 4 or higher should be car-free, with no general access to
parking permits for CPZs. Policy T6 of the LLP also seeks car club membership for
three years for occupiers of new residential development, so as to discourage
reliance on the private car. Policy T3 of the LLP requires the provision of three
years membership of the London Cycle Hire Scheme for occupiers of new
residential development, in order to encourage and support the use of sustainable
means of travel.
34. The appellant has not disputed the need to make more cycle storage provision,
whether through additional spaces on-site or by making a financial contribution to
the provision of an on-street cycle hangar. They also acknowledge that measures
to prevent CPZ parking permits being allocated, and to provide car club and cycle
hire scheme memberships are required by the development plan. Having regard to
the relevant policies, I am satisfied that the measures are required to mitigate the
impact of the development, and the appellant has indicated a willingness to provide
an obligation under Section 106 of the Act to secure them. However, no obligation
is before me.
35. The appellant has suggested that “it is standard practice to secure these
obligations post-approval”. However, the Planning Practice Guidance (“the PPG”) is
clear that no payment of money or other consideration can be required when
granting planning permission7. The PPG also advises that a negatively worded
condition limiting the development that can take place until a planning obligation or
other agreement has been entered into is unlikely to be appropriate in the majority
of cases, not least because ensuring that a planning obligation is entered into
7 Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 21a-005-20190723
ahead of any grant of planning permission provides certainty for all parties about
what is being agreed. It suggests that “in exceptional circumstances a negatively
worded condition requiring a planning obligation or other agreement to be entered
into before certain development can commence may be appropriate, where there is
clear evidence that the delivery of the development would otherwise be at serious
risk” 8, but there is nothing before me to suggest that such “exceptional
circumstances” apply in this case.
36. In the absence of a mechanism to secure the provision of adequate cycle parking,
car-free development, car club membership and cycle scheme membership, the
development would not adequately promote sustainable means of travel, or
mitigate its effects on the surrounding highway and transport networks. It would
therefore conflict with Policies T3, T6 and Q13 of the LLP, and Policies T4, T5 and
T6 of the London Plan 2021, the principal relevant requirements of which I have
summarised in paragraphs 32 and 33 above. There would also be some conflict
with Policy D4 of the LLP, which sets out examples of the types of facilities and
improvements for which planning obligations will be sought.
Planning Balance and Conclusion
37. The proposal would result in conflict with Policy H9 of the LLP in terms of its impact
on housing “suitable for occupation by families”, and in relation to meeting an
identified local need for HMOs. For the reasons I have set out above I consider that
the extent and impact of this conflict on its own (and any similar conflict with Policy
H3 which might arise) would be very limited. However, I have also found that there
would be significant shortcomings in terms of living conditions within the
development, and that it would not make adequate provision to promote
sustainable means of travel, or mitigate its effects on the surrounding highway and
transport networks.
38. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There
are no material considerations, including those of the National Planning Policy
Framework, that indicate the proposal should be determined other than in
accordance with the development plan.
39. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
M Cryan
Inspector
8 Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 21a-010-20190723