Empire Communications Limited and Oakenfield Enterprises Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and London Borough of Camden [2026] EWHC 817 (Admin)
Empire serviced apartments is an important Planning Court case on the planning use of flats operated as short-term serviced accommodation.
The court upheld an Inspector’s conclusion that the relevant use was a sui generis serviced-apartment use rather than ordinary C3 dwellinghouses. It also confirms that London’s 90-night short-letting rule does not itself decide the planning-use classification.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2026] EWHC 817 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court, King's Bench Division, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 2nd April 2026
- Judge
- Tim Smith, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- Case number
- AC-2025-LON-000745
What Empire decided
The case concerned two former office buildings at 254–256 and 258–262 Belsize Road in Camden. Prior approval had been obtained for office-to-residential conversion, but the accommodation was later operated as short-term serviced apartments.
Camden served an enforcement notice alleging a material change of use to a sui generis serviced-apartment use. An Inspector substantially upheld the notice, although the requirements were varied so that cessation of the unlawful use, rather than a return to offices, was sufficient.
The owners challenged the Inspector’s decision in the High Court. Tim Smith, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed the challenge.
The actual character of the use was decisive
Planning use is determined by what is actually happening on the land, viewed as a matter of fact and degree. The fact that the individual units had once been authorised as dwellings did not compel the conclusion that their later operation remained within Use Class C3.
The Inspector was entitled to look at the pattern of occupation, the short-term nature of stays and the commercial serviced-accommodation operation as a whole.
On those facts, the use had a materially different character from ordinary residential occupation and could properly be treated as sui generis.
The 90-night London rule does not define the planning use
The Deregulation Act regime allows limited short-term letting of residential premises in Greater London without that activity itself amounting to a material change of use, subject to the statutory conditions including the annual night limit.
Empire confirms that this does not create a general rule that any letting pattern inside or outside 90 nights automatically determines the planning use class. The planning question remains whether, on the facts, there has been a material change in the character of the use.
For the wider position see Planning Geek’s guide to serviced accommodation and planning permission.
The planning unit mattered
The appellants argued for an analysis focused on individual flats. The Inspector was entitled instead to identify the relevant planning unit and assess the use occurring across it.
That is a recurring issue in enforcement cases. A collection of spaces capable of being occupied separately does not necessarily mean that every room or flat is a separate planning unit for the purpose of identifying the breach.
The longer enforcement time limit applied
The appellants also sought to rely on the former four-year immunity rule associated with the use of a building as a single dwellinghouse.
The Inspector had found that the breach was a material change to a sui generis serviced-apartment use. It was therefore not the kind of single-dwellinghouse breach to which the former four-year rule applied. The longer enforcement period governed the use alleged in the notice.
The historic time limits have since changed in England, but the classification point remains important when deciding what breach has actually occurred and which immunity rule applies.
The business model was evidence, not the legal test
How the accommodation was marketed, managed and serviced was relevant evidence about its character. But the legal classification did not turn on the label chosen by the operator.
Calling units apartments, flats, holiday accommodation or serviced accommodation cannot settle the planning question. The decision-maker must identify the real planning use from the evidence.
Why Empire is useful in practice
The case is particularly valuable for blocks which began life as conventional C3 flats but are later operated as a coordinated short-stay business.
It reinforces the need to examine the planning unit, the intensity and pattern of occupation, servicing and management, and the nature of the use as a whole before assuming that the original residential permission still describes what is happening.
See also Planning Geek’s guide to Use Class C and our enforcement notice guide.
Read the full Empire judgment
The full Planning Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Empire Serviced Apartments Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026