Appeal Decision 3367051 (London Borough of Haringey) — 2026-09-30

Appeal Decision 3367051 (London Borough of Haringey) — 2026-09-30
Outcome: Dismissed
Case type: Lawful Development Certificate
Development: Change of use
Appeal type: Written Representations
Location: 109 Great Cambridge Road, LONDON, N17 7LN
Postcode: N17 7LN
LPA: London Borough of Haringey
LPA code: E60000192
PINS reference: 3367051

=== FULL INSPECTOR DECISION ===

Appeal Decision
by David Jones BSc (Hons) MPlan MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 30 September 2026

Appeal Ref: APP/Y5420/X/25/3367051
109 Great Cambridge Road, Tottenham, London N17 7LN
•
•
•
•
•

The appeal is made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development (LDC).
The appeal is made by Mr Necati Girgin against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of
Haringey.
The application ref HGY/2024/3217, dated 25 November 2024, was refused by notice dated 22
January 2025.
The application was made under section 191(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended).
The use for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is the use of the property as a
6-person HMO (Use Class C4).

Decision
1.

The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matters
2.

In view of the matters in dispute, it was determined that it was not necessary for
me to conduct a site visit. The main parties were made aware of this, and no
objections were raised to the appeal being determined on this basis.

3.

In the interests of clarity and precision, I have taken the description of
development used in the banner header above from the Council’s decision notice.
This is also used in the appellant’s appeal statement.

Main Issue
4.

The main issue is whether the Council’s decision to refuse to grant a LDC was
well-founded. That will turn on whether the appellant has proved on the balance of
probabilities that the use of the property changed to a 6-person House in Multiple
Occupation (HMO) on or before 25 November 2014 and that the use continued
without significant interruption for 10 years after the date of the change.

Reasons
5.

Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 3, Class L (b) of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the
GPDO) sets out that development consisting of the change of use of a building
falling within class C3 (dwellinghouse) of the schedule to the Town and Country
Planning (Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended) to a use falling within class C4
(HMO) is permitted development.

6.

However, an Article 4 Direction was made on 30 November 2013 covering the
area, which removes permitted development rights for development consisting of a
change of use of a building to a use falling within class C4 (HMO) from a use

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision APP/Y5420/X/25/3367051

falling within class C3 (dwellinghouse). An Article 4 Direction simply means that
the permission granted by Article 3 of the GPDO does not apply to the
development specified in the Direction. The Direction is not retrospective and does
not prevent activities or works which are not development.
7.

The appellant contends that the property has been operating as a HMO since
August 2014. In support of his application the appellant has submitted a range of
documentary evidence including tenancy agreements, a signed lease agreement,
bank statements, letter from the appellant, and a statutory declaration (SD) from a
former occupant.

8.

I shall turn firstly to the tenancy agreements provided by the appellant. Six
Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreements (AST) have been provided for rooms 1-6
at the appeal property. Each AST is dated in May 2020 for a fixed term of 12
months. A further tenancy agreement which is signed by a single tenant and
relates to the entire property has also been provided which is dated April 2021,
and is for a fixed term period of 36 months.

9.

The existence of an AST or other tenancy agreement does not, of itself, mean that
the property was occupied. The agreements do not necessarily mean that the
tenant(s) took up occupation of the property, that the term stated on the agreement
correlates with the actual date the tenant(s) moved out, or that there were no other
agreements for other tenants covering the same period. In particular, the tenancy
agreement dated April 2021 does not include the names of all tenants, or the
rooms they occupied and dates that their occupation began. In any event, even if
they are taken at face value, the tenancy agreements provided only cover the
period between May 2020 and April 2024 which falls a long way short of the tenyear period required.

10. Similarly, a signed lease dated September 2023 between Range Homes and
Assisted Care Ltd for the use of the property as temporary housing
accommodation is for a period of three years and does little to assist the appellant
in demonstrating the necessary ten-year period.
11. The appellant has provided 35 pages of bank statements with incoming payments
from “Range Homes Sales” highlighted. Those payments occur at around monthly
intervals and range from around £1,100 to £3,400. As the Council have pointed
out, as a single payment is shown each month it is not possible to ascertain who
was paying rent or how many rooms were occupied at any given time.
Furthermore, the earliest payment provided is October 2021 and therefore the
bank statements do not cover anywhere near the full ten-year period.
12. In terms of the period prior to May 2020, the only documentary evidence provided
is the SD from a previous occupant, Costaki Karayianni (CK), and the appellant’s
letter. CK states that he resided at the appeal property from 2013 to 2020 and that
throughout this period, the property operated as a HMO. The SD though is vague
in detail and does not include information such as the number of tenants that
occupied the property, the nature of their occupation, or whether there were any
breaks in the occupation of any rooms. This evidence also contradicts that
contained in the appellant’s own letter and the LDC application form, which both
stated that the HMO use commenced in 2014, and not 2013 as stated by CK. This
therefore brings into question the accuracy and reliability of the evidence.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

2

Appeal Decision APP/Y5420/X/25/3367051

13. Drawing all of the above together, the appellant has failed to provide sufficiently
precise and unambiguous evidence to demonstrate, on the balance of probability,
that the property has been in use as a 6-person HMO since on or before 25
November 2014 and then continued without significant interruption for a 10-year
period thereafter. Consequently, the appeal must fail.
Conclusion
14. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the Council’s refusal to grant a
certificate of lawful use or development for the use of the property as a 6-person
HMO (Use Class C4) is well-founded and that the appeal should fail. I will exercise
accordingly the powers transferred to me in section 195(3) of the 1990 Act (as
amended).

David Jones
INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

3