Appeal 6001137

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Ground-floor rear extension and rear dormer extension to change from a 6-bed HMO (Class C4) to a 10-bed HMO (Sui-Generis) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02691/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: i. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. ii. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos E00 (Site Location and Block Plan), P01 ([name]), P02 ([name]), P03 ([name]), P04 ([name]) and P05 (Proposed Section). iii. All new external work and finishes and work of making good shall match the original work in respect of the materials, colour, texture, profile and finished appearance, except where indicated otherwise on the drawings hereby approved or unless otherwise required by condition. iv. Prior to the commencement of the use of the development hereby permitted, details of the provision to be made for cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The cycle parking shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details before the use hereby permitted commences and shall thereafter be permanently retained solely for its designated use. v. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted, details of waste and recycling storage for the development 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 commencement of the use hereby permitted and shall thereafter be permanently retained solely for its designated use. The waste and recycling storage areas/facilities should comply with the [name] & [name] (2013), unless it is demonstrated in the submissions that such provision is inappropriate for this specific development.

A costs application was made by A Frankel against the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth. This is the subject of a separate decision.

A previous appeal, [name]/N5660/W/25/3364700, which is a material consideration, was dismissed on 27 August 2025 for “The change of use of existing property from a small HMO (Use Class C4) to a large house in multiple occupation (HMO) with 10 rooms (sui generis) involving the erection of a single storey ground floor rear extension. Erection of a rear dormer roof extension and installation of two rooflight to the front roof slope.” This concluded that the proposed development would harm the housing mix in the area and would not mitigate against any additional parking demand. I have carefully considered the previous Inspector’s decision which is a material consideration in this appeal.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposed use would be acceptable with regard to the effect on the supply of family housing and whether it would meet an identified need; • The effect on the mix, balance and well-being of the community; and • Whether a [name] contribution is necessary.

The appeal site, located adjacent to the junction of [address] and [address], comprises an end of terrace two-storey property with a small single storey rear extension. There is an enclosed private back garden as well as space for parking inside the front boundary. [address], which runs between [name] and the far end of the parallel [address], contains a mix of predominantly residential properties with in-curtilage parking, consistent with the wider area.

Policy H9 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (adopted 2021) (‘the LP’) sets out that, inter alia, proposals for new HMOs will be supported where it is demonstrated that the accommodation does not result in the loss of housing suitable for occupation by families as defined in Local Plan policy H6; and it would meet an identified local need. Paragraph 5.68 of the [name] outlines policy H9 to be relevant applying to both categories of HMOs.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 sets out that planning permission is granted for the classes of development described as permitted development in Schedule 2 and includes the change of use from Class C3 [name] to Class C4 HMOs.

From the evidence before me, a Class C4 HMO use has existed on the site prior to the Council’s introduction of its Article 4 Direction (11 August 2025) removing the above permitted development rights in the appeal site area. As such, the proposal is not affected by the Direction.

The Council maintains that a fallback position exists, despite accepting that the property is operating as an HMO. This is on the basis that the property remains capable of reverting to a single-family dwelling without planning permission. However, the internal configuration, submitted evidence and fact the appellant has confirmed that it would not be returned to family accommodation, must be afforded substantial weight. On this basis, I am not persuaded that a genuine fallback position exists.

I would therefore conclude the proposal would not result in the loss of housing suitable for occupation by families as defined in Local Plan policy H6 and no harm has been caused.

Policy H9 sets out that the London Plan states that, where they are of a reasonable standard, HMOs should generally be protected. The proposed ten-bedroom large HMO is not identified as serving any particular client group. The appellant has also provided information indicating that an application for a licence for the existing small HMO has been submitted. The Council has cited 112 HMOs in the [name] and [name] area with four existing sui generis HMOs present along [address]. However, based on the evidence before me, including the number of existing residential properties on [address], I am not persuaded that adding four bedrooms at the appeal site would lead to an over-proliferation of HMOs in the surrounding area.

Paragraph 5.76 of Policy H9 sets out that to avoid harmful over-concentration, new uses of this nature should generally be located at least 150m away from similar premises (measured by walking distance at street level). The Council confirms that large HMOs are registered at 147, 155, 165 and [address], all in close proximity. However, given the existing HMO use, I am satisfied that the proposal would not harm the mix, balance or well-being of the local community.

Paragraph 5.72 of LP Policy H9 further sets out that HMOs play an important role in providing accommodation for single people who cannot afford self-contained housing. From the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the proposal is required to meet this identified local need.

In conclusion, the proposed development would not result in over-proliferation and would meet an identified local need aligning to Policy H9 of the LP and would not cause harm.

Regarding car parking, the site is not located within an existing [name] (CPZ) and there is no information before me to confirm any future CPZ. As per the previous Inspector’s findings, I am satisfied there remains no submitted evidence to demonstrate the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on parking conditions and traffic congestion in the area or that permit-free development is necessary.

Although there are clear shortfalls in the submitted [name] (UU) in terms of its execution and certification, I have found no evidence of an existing or planned CPZ, and as a result the appellant would not be required to make a financial contribution in this regard.

In terms of the provision of three years free membership of the [name] and three years free membership to an accredited [name], Policy T6, criterion D(iii) states that development should make car club membership available to all residents in new residential development, whilst Policy T3(H) states that a minimum of three years’ free membership of the [name] should be made available for all residents, regardless of tenure, in new residential developments.

[name] have found the existing use to be a Class C4 HMO, and the building would still be a single planning unit, involving a change in the type of residential accommodation provided within the building, these memberships would only be necessary for the four additional occupants. I am doubtful as to how such obligations would be fairly specified, particularly in terms of identifying to whom such requirements would apply, given they would all reside in the same building, and how this would be managed given the short-term nature of HMO occupancy. Therefore, I am not persuaded that these amount to binding obligations, which would comply with the strict terms of s106(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or the tests as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’). In any event, in terms of cycle parking, the Council has confirmed there would be suitable space within the rear garden area of the property to accommodate this.

In conclusion, the proposed development would not give rise to unacceptable parking or traffic impacts and is consistent with Policy H9 of the Local Plan and Policy T6 of the London Plan. Adequate cycle parking can be secured by condition to comply with Policy T3 of the London Plan, and a unilateral undertaking is not required for the reasons already identified.

My attention has been drawn to appeals APP/N5660/W/24/3337243 (allowed 27 August 2024) at [address], Lambeth and APP/N5660/W/25/3366452 (allowed 15 October 2025 at [address], Lambeth to support the appellant’s position. [name] have found the proposed development to be compliant with the Local Plan, it is not necessary to review these in greater detail.

The Council has suggested several planning conditions. I have considered these in accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework.

The standard conditions setting out the time limit for implementation and the approved plans are both necessary to define the permission and provide certainty.

A condition ensuring the detailed materials to be used is necessary to ensure the proposal would respect and reflect the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

A condition requiring cycle parking/storage is detailed to ensure permanent, adequate provision on site promoting sustainable modes of transport.

A condition ensuring details are submitted and approved for the permanent provision of a waste/recycling storage area, which would ensure that the living conditions of neighbouring properties and any future residents of the appeal site are protected.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would not conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.