Case Reference: 3366452

Costs Decision
Site visit made on 16 September 2025
by T Bennett BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 15 October 2025
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/W/25/3366452
44 Lambert Road, Lambeth, London SW2 5BE
 The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and
Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
 The application is made by [APPELLANT] for a full award of costs against the Council of the London
Borough of Lambeth.
 The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for change of use of the premise from a
small HMO (Use Class C4) to a large house in multiple occupation (HMO) with 11 rooms (sui
generis), including the provision of refuse and cycling facilities.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, the
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for
costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. The applicant’s case for seeking an award of costs is grounded in substantive
matters, specifically that the Council failed to assess the fallback position of use
Class C4 as well as failing to consider appeal precedents and also procedural
matters, with the Council failing to respond to a submitted draft unilateral
undertaking and refused to meaningfully engage throughout the application
process.
Engagement
4. Regarding engagement between the parties, email correspondence demonstrates
that the Council did engage with the applicant. Whilst the applicant may not have
agreed with the Councils response, I find that that there is no evidence that the
Council behaved unreasonably in this regard.
Similar cases
5. At paragraph 7.21 of the Officer Report, the Council did consider two other appeal
decisions1 that had been drawn to their attention by the appellant, clearly
identifying differences between those schemes and the proposed scheme. As
such, the other cases do not set a precedent by which the Council should have
granted planning permission, nor that they have been inconsistent in their
approach.
1 Ref: APP/U5360/W/24/3352804 & APP/N5090/W/20/3261065
6. The applicant also considers that there was no consideration given to the outcome
of an appeal at 41 Valley Road2. However, from the information before me,
reference to this appeal was only made by the appellant in the appeal statement. It
is not clear at what point the appellant drew this to the attention of the Planning
Officer. As such, I do not find that on this example, unreasonable behaviour has
been demonstrated.
Failure to consider Unilateral Undertaking (UU)
7. The applicant submitted a UU on the 28 April 2025, several days prior to the
determination of the application. The UU sought to deal with parking permits, car
club and cycle club membership. However, the Officer Report does not make any
reference to the UU and the application was refused, in part, due to the lack of an
agreement to secure transportation measures. I consider that the lack of
engagement with the UU constitutes unreasonable behaviour.
8. Had the Council engaged with the UU, the absence of an agreement may not have
formed a reason for refusal. However, in any event, whether the application
proceeded to appeal or not, the applicant would have been required to produce a
legal agreement. Therefore, I do not find that the unreasonable behaviour in this
instance has led the appellant to any material wasted or unnecessary expense as
part of the appeal process.
Failure to assess fallback
9. I acknowledge the email communication between the parties in relation to a
potential fallback position at the appeal property to Use Class C4 under Class L of
the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO). However, the Officer Report
itself, which is the basis for the decision, contained no assessment by the Council
as to whether a fallback under Class L of the GPDO could be a material
consideration. The only reference to fallback, at paragraph 7.21 of the Officer
Report, was in the context of other appeal decisions submitted by the appellant.
Given this, I am not entirely satisfied that the fallback position put forward by the
appellant was given sufficient consideration in determining the application, and I
find that this amounts to unreasonable behaviour.
10. However, notwithstanding this, from all of the submitted information, it is clear that
there were fundamental disagreements on the principle of the development, and to
my mind, this was a matter unlikely to be resolved during the application process
and thus could only be dealt with at appeal. As the PPG advises that an application
for costs will need to clearly demonstrate how any unreasonable behaviour has
resulted in unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process, the existence of
unreasonable behaviour in itself is not sufficient to justify an award of costs. The
behaviour must also directly cause another party to incur unnecessary or wasted
expense in the appeal process. As I consider the appeal process was unavoidable,
the applicant has not incurred unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal
process.
2 Ref: APP/N5660/W/24/3337243
Conclusion
11. In conclusion, I find that unreasonable behaviour by the Council resulting in
unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been
demonstrated. Consequently, the application for an award of costs is refused.
T Bennett
INSPECTOR


Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 16 September 2025
by T Bennett BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 15 October 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/W/25/3366452
44 Lambert Road, Lambeth, 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 Ref is 24/03521/FUL.
 The development proposed is change of use of the premise from a small HMO (Use Class C4) to a
large house in multiple occupation (HMO) with 11 rooms (sui generis), including the provision of
refuse and cycling facilities.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use of
the premise to a large house in multiple occupation (HMO) with 11 rooms (sui
generis), including the provision of refuse and cycling facilities at 44 Lambert
Road, Lambeth, London SW2 5BE in accordance with the terms of the application,
Ref 24/03521/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.
Applications for costs
2. An application for costs was made by [APPELLANT] against the Council of the
London Borough of Lambeth. This application is the subject of a separate
Decision.
Preliminary Matters
3. For conciseness, in the banner heading and formal decision I have removed
reference to retrospective planning permission in the description of development as
this does not describe an act of development.
4. Following the issuing of the decision notice, a previous appeal decision at the
appeal site was issued1. Whilst no comments have been made on that decision by
the Council, I am satisfied that they have had the opportunity to comment on that
decision.
Main Issues
5. The main issues are:
 whether the principle of the development is acceptable with regard to its
effect on housing supply; and
1 Ref: APP/N5660/W/24/3354948
 whether the proposed development would support sustainable means of
travel and mitigate its effects on the surrounding highway network.
Reasons
Housing
Loss of self-contained C3 housing
6. The previous appeal decision which was issued after the Councils determination of
this application dealt with this main issue in some detail. In that appeal the
proposal was for the use of the premises as a large HMO with 11 units, similar to
this appeal. I have carefully considered the Inspectors report on that case. Given
the similarity with this appeal, it is a significant material consideration.
7. Conflict has been cited with Policy H3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) (LLP).
This policy seeks to safeguard existing self-contained C3 housing. The appellant
contends that the existing premises has already been in use as an 11-unit HMO
since at least 2013 and so there would not be a loss of self-contained C3 housing.
8. As set out by the previous Inspector, it is not within the remit of an appeal made
under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to formally determine
whether a particular use has already been established. 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.
9. The Council consider that the property should 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.
10. The appellant has submitted three statutory declarations from three tenants who
state that the premises has been in use as an 11-unit HMO since 1 May 2013. I
have no reason to dispute this information, and it aligns with the appellants
contention that the property has been in this use since at least 2013. The Council
also confirm that a site visit demonstrated that the appeal property was laid out as
per the existing plans, this being 11 rooms with cooking facilities and shared
bathrooms, aligning with a large HMO.
11. The Council also confirm that a HMO license for the property was issued allowing
a maximum of 11 households and 13 persons to occupy the property from 31
January 2012 to 3 May 2016. An additional HMO license was also issued for the
property by the Council on 24 July 2024, which expires on 25 January 2026,
although no details have been supplied of this license. However, the granting of a
HMO license does not negate the need to obtain planning permission for a larger
HMO.
12. Moreover, the Inspector in the previous appeal at the site, noted that the appeal
property is not subject to a Direction under Article 4 of the GPDO 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. The Inspector
consequently considered that under the provisions of Part 3, Class L of the GPDO
the property could lawfully be used as a Class C4 “smaller” HMO. Therefore, even
if the lawfulness of the current issue is not proven by way of a lawful development
certificate, it is a significant material consideration that the property can lawfully be
used as a Class C4 HMO.
13. Whilst it is not within the scope of this appeal to formally determine the lawful
existing use of the property, from all that I have seen and read; I am satisfied that
the property has been in use as a HMO. This is the same conclusion as the
previous Inspector, albeit the previous Inspector considered the site could be
treated specifically as a smaller C4 HMO.
14. In conclusion, for the reasons above and considering the properties current use as
a HMO, the proposal would not result in a loss of self-contained C3 housing and
there would be no conflict with Policy H3 of the LLP.
Provision of new HMO accommodation
15. Part A of Policy H9 of the LLP only supports HMOs subject to them satisfying a list
of criteria. The Council are satisfied the proposal would meet all the criteria except
for i.) which requires that the accommodation does not result in the loss of housing
suitable for occupation by families as defined in Local Plan policy H6, and ii) would
meet an identified local need.
16. Part A of Policy H6 of the LLP seeks to protect dwellings suitable for occupation by
families of less than 130sqm (as originally constructed) from conversion into flats.
The Council confirm the property is greater than 130sqm, therefore part A is not
engaged. Part B of Policy H6 relates only to self-contained units; therefore, it is also
not applicable in this case. As Policy H6 would not be engaged, the supporting text
of this policy at paragraph 5.39 does not apply. Given there would be no conflict
with Policy H6 of the LLP I consider that the proposal would not result in the loss of
housing suitable for occupation by families.
17. In relation to meeting an identified need, the supporting text to Policy H9 requires
that reference is made to sources including the Lambeth Strategic Housing Market
Assessment 2017 (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 has not made reference to any of these sources.
Consequently, I am not persuaded that the proposal would meet a specific local
need as required by Policy H9(ii). As such, there would be conflict with Policy H9 in
this regard.
Overall conclusion on this main issue
18. I have concluded that the development would not lead to the loss of a self-
contained C3 dwelling, finding no conflict with Policy H3 of the LLP. However, the
appellant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed sui generis HMO would meet
an identified local need, conflicting with Policy H9 of the LLP.
19. If the Council is of the view that the property should be treated as a C3
dwellinghouse, there would be conflict with Policy H3 of the LLP. But, the fallback
position, which was outlined by the previous Inspector, that the property could
lawfully be used as a C4 HMO without needing planning permission is a significant
material consideration, one which would overcome and outweigh any conflict with
Policy H3.
20. The present use and potential lawful use of the property as a HMO is also relevant
to the conflict at part A ii) of Policy H9. Although no evidence has been provided
that the proposal is meeting an identified local need, it would be making a
contribution to meeting the general housing need. Moreover, there is nothing before
me to indicate that it would result in an over-concentration of such uses or that it
would harm the mix, balance and well-being of the community, with the Council
raising no issues in this regard. The HMO is also in an accessible location with no
concerns raised regarding the standard of accommodation. I find that these factors
cumulatively would overcome and outweigh the conflict with part A (ii) of Policy H9.
21. Policy H8 of the London Plan (2021) has been cited on the decision notice in
relation to this issue. This policy relates to loss of existing housing and seeks to
ensure that replacement housing is at existing or higher densities with at least the
equivalent level of overall floorspace. There is no explanation in the officer report of
this Policy or why any conflict arises. I have therefore not found it determinative in
this case.
Sustainable travel
22. Policy T1 of the LLP seeks to maximise trips made by sustainable modes of
transport and reduce dependency on the private car. Policy T6 of the LLP outlines
that development should be permit free where development has a public transport
accessibility level (PTAL) score of 4-6 and/or where the development falls within an
existing or planned controlled parking zone (CPZ). The appeal site is within a PTAL
area of 4 and within a CPZ. The development should therefore be made car permit-
free in line with Policy T6 of the LLP. This policy also seeks the provision of car-
club membership.
23. Policy T3 of the LLP relates to cycling and seeks appropriate, secure and covered
cycle parking facilities in accordance with the minimum standards set out in Policy
T5 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy Q13 of the LLP. The submitted plans
show the provision of 11 cycle parking spaces of which details of the storage could
be secured via an appropriately worded condition. Criterion H of Policy T3 also
requires that all residents in new residential developments are provided with a
minimum of three years free membership to a Cycle Hire scheme.
24. A signed and dated Unilateral Undertaking (the UU) pursuant to section 106 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) has been submitted with the
appeal. This includes obligations to restrict the occupiers of the new residential
units from holding a resident’s parking permit; to provide for car club and cycle hire
membership and a financial contribution towards a cycle hangar. I have taken the
UU into account in my determination of the appeal. While the Council has not
commented on the UU, I am satisfied that it has been provided with the opportunity
to do so through the appeal process.
25. Whilst the Council refused the scheme, in part, because of a lack of financial
contribution to provide a cycle hangar, given that sufficient on-site cycle parking
can be accommodated, I do not consider that an on-street cycle hangar is
necessary and thus there is no requirement for such a financial contribution to be
made. However, on the basis of the evidence before me, I find that the transport
obligations securing permit free parking, car club membership and cycle hire
membership are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and
kind to the development. In this regard, the UU meets the tests set out in paragraph
57 of the Framework and Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy
Regulations 2010.
26. The Council also require a £500 monitoring fee, payable prior to completion of a
legal agreement. However, very little information has been given as to how this
money would be used and I am not clear what would be monitored. Moreover, the
UU is not a legal agreement between the parties. Given these factors, I do not find
that the monitoring fee would be necessary and as such would not meet the tests
set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework and Regulation 122 of the Community
Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.
27. In conclusion, on this main issue, the proposal would promote sustainable means
of travel and mitigate any harmful transport effects that may arise. There is thus no
conflict with Policies T1 and T3 of the LLP.
Conditions
28. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council having regard to the
tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (the
PPG). Where necessary I have made changes to the wording of conditions in the
interests of precision and clarity.
29. In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition requiring the
development to be carried out in accordance with approved plans is needed in the
interests of proper planning and for the avoidance of doubt.
30. To ensure that the development provides opportunities for sustainable transport
modes, a condition is necessary to ensure that the development provides secure
cycle parking provision.
31. In the interests of safeguarding the living conditions of surrounding neighbours and
future occupiers, a condition is necessary to ensure the suitable provision for the
storage and collection of refuse.
Planning Balance and Conclusion
32. The proposed development would result in conflict with Policy H9 of the LLP. For
the reasons I have set out above, the extent and impact of this conflict would be
very limited. The proposal would support sustainable means of travel and mitigate
its effects on the surrounding network. No other harms arising from the
development have been identified. I therefore consider that the material
considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance
with the development plan. The appeal is therefore allowed.
T Bennett
INSPECTOR
Conditions
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the
date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
drawing nos: E00; PE01; PE02; PE03; PE04; PE05; PE06; P01; P02;P03; P04;
P05; P06; P07; P08; E01; E02; E03; E04; E05; E06;E07; E08 and E09.
3) Notwithstanding details shown on the approved drawings, prior to the occupation
of the units hereby approved, details of the provision to be made for cycle parking
spaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The cycle parking shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with
the approved details before the use hereby permitted commences and shall
thereafter be retained solely for its designated use.
4) Notwithstanding details shown on the approved drawings, prior to the occupation
of the units hereby approved, details of waste and recycling storage shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The waste
and recycling storage shall be provided in accordance with the approved details
prior to the occupation of the relevant part of development hereby permitted and
shall thereafter be retained solely for its designated use. The waste and recycling
storage areas/facilities should comply with the Waste & Recycling Storage and
Collection Requirements Technical Specification for Architects & Designers 2023
and the Refuse & Recycling Storage Design Guide 2022, unless it is
demonstrated in the submissions that such provision is inappropriate for this
specific development.
**End of Conditions**