# 9 Selway House, 272 South Lambeth Road, Lambeth

- **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Clark
- **Authority:** Lambeth (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008038
- **Application reference:** 25/03420/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of a ground/first-floor duplex from HMO (C4) to short-term let (C1)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** TC3
- **Development plan policies:** Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 ED10, ED14, H3, Q2, Q12, Q13, London Plan 2021 E10, T5
- **Main issues:** location of visitor accommodation, loss of housing, living conditions, refuse and cycle storage
- **Tags:** tier-2, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, old-wording-slip, short-term-let, sequential-test, living-conditions, loss-of-housing

## Summary
A change of use from HMO to a C1 short-term let was dismissed. There was no sequential test for an out-of-centre main town centre use, and TC3 was aligned with local policy ED14 (DL ¶9-11). The scheme also meant the loss of a potential family home, noise from short-let groups, and no adequate refuse arrangements.

## What made the difference
Treating short-stay lets as C1 visitor accommodation brought in the TC3 sequential test, and the appellant supplied none. Because an HMO can switch back to C3 under PD, it still counts as housing stock (DL ¶18). Drafting slip: the letter says the 2026 Framework was applied but cites the old paragraphs 85 and 91 (DL ¶10, 13).

## Policy findings
- **TC3: fail.** C1 short-stay visitor accommodation is a main town centre use; out of centre, no sequential test submitted; ED14/E10 "aligns with Policy TC3" (DL 9-11)
- **H3 (Lambeth LP): conflict (significant weight).** loss of a home suitable for families; C4 can revert to C3 under PD so still housing (DL 16-20)
- **P3: harm (significant weight).** code mapped by harvester — short-let groups, loitering and garden use at unsociable hours; management plan not before the inspector (DL 23-27); refuse and living-conditions harm "collectively attract significant weight" (DL 42)
- **TR6: not-engaged.** code mapped by harvester — highway "unacceptable/severe" test noted but refuse reason "not based on highway safety" (DL 29)

## Key facts
- PTAL 6a, but outside a town centre (DL 11)
- Communal bins overflowing at the site visit; no private refuse contract offered for the commercial use (DL 28, 32)
- Parties were given the chance to comment on the 2026 Framework, yet the letter still cites old paras 85 and 91 (DL 4, 10, 13)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008038
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bf96cd14-f101-43b4-8479-709669676dff

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008038.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.