Camden short-term lets have come under renewed scrutiny after a Planning Inspector dismissed an appeal against an enforcement notice concerning a five-bedroom house in Hampstead. The decision, issued on 30 October 2026, upholds the council’s requirement to stop the property’s use as temporary sleeping accommodation. It does not determine whether all occasional home letting needs permission.
Inspector Robert Naylor decided appeal APP/X5210/C/25/3376280 following a site visit to Rudall Crescent on 13 October. The appeal was lodged by Roy Shai on behalf of Midas Real Estate Limited. The appellant argued that the house remained its owner’s main residence and was only let for short periods when the occupant was away. However, the appeal was brought solely on ground (a), seeking planning permission for the use alleged in the notice.
The case matters because short-term lets in London operate within a specific statutory exemption, but an assertion that a property stays within the 90-night limit is not a substitute for supporting records. This appeal also shows how housing policy, neighbours’ living conditions and parking evidence can determine an application even where no physical building work is proposed.
Why short-term lets failed at this Camden appeal
Camden Council issued its enforcement notice on 15 October 2025, alleging a material change from residential use to temporary sleeping accommodation. The notice required that use to cease, with one month allowed for compliance once it took effect. The appellant challenged the notice on ground (a) of section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which meant the Inspector considered whether permission should be granted on the deemed planning application.
The appellant maintained that there was no intention to convert the property permanently into visitor accommodation. However, the Inspector explained that no ground (c) case was before him to establish that the alleged breach had not occurred. He therefore assessed the planning merits of the change of use as described in the notice. The distinction is important: dismissing this appeal is not proof that every individual short booking at a home is unlawful.
The London 90-night exception needs evidence
For short-term lets in Greater London, section 25A of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 provides a limited planning exemption where the statutory conditions are satisfied. Broadly, the property must not be used for more than 90 nights of temporary sleeping accommodation in a calendar year, and a person providing the accommodation must be liable for council tax at the property. The exemption is not a blanket right to operate an unrestricted visitor business.
The appellant said the property remained a main residence and claimed that short stays did not exceed the permitted number of nights. The Inspector’s decision records that he had been given little evidence to confirm this claim
. He also said that he had not received council tax records demonstrating that the statutory council tax condition was met. These are findings about the evidence before the appeal, not a measured count of bookings.
I would treat this as an evidence warning, rather than a new legal test. Owners considering short-term lets should be able to establish the lawful starting use, who is liable for council tax, the nights actually let and how the property is occupied between bookings. Our serviced accommodation planning permission guide explains how planning use is assessed beyond the London-specific exemption.
Why Camden considered housing supply at risk
The house has five bedrooms and sits within a predominantly residential part of Hampstead, despite being close to the station and High Street. Camden Local Plan policies H1 and H3 seek to protect the permanent housing stock, while London Plan policy H8 also addresses the loss of existing housing. With insufficient evidence to establish the claimed intermittent main-home arrangement, the Inspector assessed the proposed visitor use as the loss of a family dwelling.
That is a policy assessment of the deemed planning application, not a declaration that any single holiday booking removes a home from the housing stock. For Camden short-term lets the distinction is particularly significant because local policy expressly resists conversions that displace permanent residential accommodation. Camden’s published short-let guidance gives the council’s position and describes the London exemption.
Moore judgment and the character of the use
The appellant referred to the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Sheila Moore v Secretary of State [2012] EWCA Civ 1202. In that case, the court explained that commercial holiday letting may amount to a material change of use depending on the facts and degree of difference from the established dwellinghouse use. The Inspector applied that approach while recognising the importance of records showing who comes and goes.
He noted that relevant factors can include patterns of arrivals and departures, whether guests operate as household groups, how often larger gatherings occur and possible effects on neighbours. The Inspector contrasted other appeals cited by the appellant with the weaker evidential record in this case. Short-term lets cannot be assessed solely by a property’s label, the online booking platform used or the absence of internal alterations.
Noise, occupation and parking were unresolved
The appellant suggested that a maximum of six guests would stay and that arrivals were controlled by house rules prohibiting parties. During the visit, however, the Inspector saw five bedrooms containing double beds and considered that at least ten people could potentially be accommodated. No detailed restrictions, draft management plan or sufficient information about actual or proposed movements were supplied to demonstrate how noise and disturbance would be prevented.
The Inspector did not establish that particular neighbours had already suffered a quantified noise nuisance. His concern was whether the evidence justified concluding that the visitor use would be acceptable, and whether any necessary controls could safely be left to planning conditions. Short-term lets with rapid turnover require a clear management case if the number of guests and the hours of movement could materially affect residential amenity.
Parking presented a separate difficulty. Rudall Crescent lies in a controlled parking zone where the Inspector observed substantial on-street parking demand. The proposed use offered no off-street spaces, and there was no persuasive parking survey, travel plan or secured mechanism to make the visitor accommodation genuinely car-free. He therefore could not conclude that additional demand would avoid harm to parking conditions and congestion.
What happens after the enforcement appeal?
The Inspector dismissed the appeal, upheld the Camden enforcement notice and refused permission on the deemed application. The formal decision leaves the requirement to stop the unauthorised temporary sleeping accommodation use in place. It does not itself impose a planning prohibition on every possible future form of ordinary residential occupation or on lawful occasional letting within the statutory rules.
The practical lesson for anyone operating short-term lets is that enforcement appeal grounds must fit the argument being made. Ground (a) addresses whether permission ought to be granted; ground (c), if properly available and pursued, addresses whether the alleged breach took place. Our enforcement notice appeal guide explains the grounds and deadlines in more detail.
I would also distinguish this decision from the York holiday-let appeal we covered in September, where the Inspector allowed a different proposal on its own evidence. Neither result supplies a national blanket rule for serviced accommodation. What matters is the existing planning use, the precise scheme, the local policy framework and a defensible body of evidence.
Decision and sources
The official Planning Inspectorate appeal record is APP/X5210/C/25/3376280, decided by Robert Naylor on 30 October 2026. The quotations in this report are from the Inspector’s decision under the Open Government Licence v3.0. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments