Appeal Decision

Site visit made on 18 November 2025

by P Burley BA (Hons) MPhil MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 20 November 2025

Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/W/25/3373446

92 Ground Floor Landor Road, Lambeth, London SW9 9PE

• 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 25/01884/FUL.
• The development proposed is the change of use of the shop (Class E) at basement and ground floor levels to provide two 2-bed flats (Use Class C3), together with excavation / extension of the basement with creation of a lightwell to the rear and alterations to rear and side fenestration, including a new entrance front door.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matters

2. Whilst the appellant’s Statement of Case (SoC) requests that prior approval is given for the proposed development, the application and appeal forms indicate that this is an appeal following a refusal to grant planning permission and I have therefore treated it as such.

Main Issues

3. The main issues are:
   • whether the change of use has been justified;
   • whether sustainable travel measures have been secured; and
   • the adequacy of cycle parking provision.

Reasons

Change of Use

4. To justify the loss of ground floor active uses in local centres, Part C of Policy ED11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) (LLP) seeks evidence that the premises have been actively marketed over a continuous period of at least one year for an active frontage use compatible with the function of the centre and that it has not been possible to secure an occupier.
5. No marketing evidence has been provided; instead, the appellant has based its argument on there being a ‘fallback’ position, a matter that I will discuss below. Nevertheless, I must still have regard to all relevant development plan policies in making this decision and therefore I conclude that in the absence of marketing evidence the appeal scheme conflicts with LLP Policy ED11 which seeks to support the role of local centres.

Sustainable Travel Measures

6. The appellant has submitted a unilateral undertaking (UU) pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) which includes provisions relating to car club membership and parking permit restrictions. It does not include the provision of cycle hire membership to the occupiers of the proposed development, a consideration which also formed part of the third reason for refusal.
7. However, the UU is not dated. Where an appeal is made following the written representations procedure, the appellant must ensure that it submits an executed and certified copy of any planning obligation at the time of making their appeal[1] and the planning obligation must be dated and executed as a deed by all the parties to it[2]. Given that the UU has not been dated, I do not attach any weight to it and therefore conclude that it does not address the third reason for refusal. Thus, the appeal scheme would conflict with LLP Policies D4, T3 and T6 and Policies T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) which relate to the use of planning obligations and which seek to promote sustainable modes of travel, including by limiting car parking, and to mitigate the transport impacts of development.

Cycle Parking

8. The Council objected to the proposed cycle storage arrangements on the basis that they would necessitate the lifting of bicycles and that this would not be accessible to all. However, in its SoC the appellant has illustrated an alternative solution which would not require cycles to be lifted. These details could reasonably be secured by way of a planning condition, thereby ensuring compliance with LLP Policies T1, T3 and Q13 and LP Policy T5 which together seek to promote sustainable travel and ensure that adequate cycle parking / storage is provided.

Other Matters

Fallback

9. The appellant has said that there is an extant planning permission (20/02031/FUL) and an extant prior approval authorisation (24/03091/FUL) which together allow for the creation of a 3-bedroom flat and a studio flat in the part of the building which is the subject of this appeal. It has said that these are material considerations in respect of this appeal, and that it is beyond doubt that if planning permission is not granted for the appeal scheme the extant planning permission and prior approval schemes would be built out in full. I have no reason to doubt this and, therefore, the question is what weight should be ascribed to the fallback position.
10. If this appeal was allowed it would result in the loss of the Class E floorspace, just as would occur if the fallback position was built out in full. Taking account of the 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-appeals-procedural-guide/procedural-guide-planning-appeals- england#written-representations 2 Planning obligations: good practice advice - GOV. UK aim of the development plan to guard against the unjustified loss of such floorspace, neither outcome would be more desirable than the other.
11. In its SoC the appellant has said that the purpose of the appeal application is to provide better-quality living accommodation and that if the appeal fails, the inevitable result would be that the full residential use would be lost, and poorer quality living accommodation would be provided. However, as well as there being no evidence that the dismissal of this appeal would result in the loss of any residential accommodation, no explanation has been provided as to why the residential accommodation in the appeal scheme would be an improvement over that which the appellant says would be delivered under its fallback position. Therefore, I attach a very limited amount of weight to the appellant’s suggestion in respect of the quality of the proposed residential accommodation.
12. There is also no evidence before me in respect of any sustainable travel measures, for example parking permit restrictions, associated with the fallback position. However, given the absence of such measures from the appeal scheme, even if no such provisions had been secured in respect of the fallback position, the appeal scheme would still not represent a preferable position. In addition, the drawings showing the fallback position illustrate cycle parking and, therefore, in this regard the appeal scheme would not result in a more desirable outcome as might have been the case had the fallback position not included any.

Future Amendment to Fallback Scheme

13. The appellant has also stated that if the extant planning permission and prior approval schemes were built out in full, and an application was then made for a proposal as per the appeal layout, there can be no doubt that permission would be granted and the reasons for refusal would not apply. Whilst I cannot reach a conclusion in relation to such a scenario in the absence of the full details that would accompany a planning application, the appellant has not suggested that such a planning permission would not be subject to the sustainable travel measures that the Council sought in relation to the appeal application. Accordingly, and again given the absence of such measures from the appeal scheme, I do not find that the prospect of this alternative scenario occurring should weigh in favour of allowing the appeal scheme.

Planning Balance and Conclusion

14. The appeal scheme would result in the unjustified loss of a Class E use and would not mitigate the transport impacts of the development, both of which are negative components in the planning balance. Adequate cycle parking / storage provision could be made, resulting in compliance with the relevant policies which is a neutral component in the planning balance. Taking account of these matters, I find that, overall, the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole.
15. Although the appellant has put forward a fallback position in support of the appeal scheme, I have concluded that the appeal scheme would be no more desirable than the fallback in terms of the loss of the existing use or sustainable travel measures. Whilst it has been suggested that it would result in better quality residential accommodation, the absence of any substantiation, whether by way of evidence or explanation, has resulted in me attaching a very limited amount of weight to this argument.
16. I conclude that that positive weight is not sufficient to outweigh the conflict with the development plan and that there are no other material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.

P Burley

INSPECTOR