®Planning appeal decision
Queens Hotel, 122 Church Road, LONDON, SE19 2UG
- Authority
- London Borough of Croydon
- Appeal type
- other · Section 106 Agreement
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- leisure-sport · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Aston R
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the planning obligation continues to serve a useful purpose
- Equality, Human Rights and Other Considerations
What decided it
The Inspector's finding that the 90-day occupation restriction served a genuine useful purpose in preventing longer-term occupation of substandard, poorly-lit hotel rooms unsuitable for extended stays.
Having found a useful purpose, the Inspector held there was no scope in the s.106A/106B legislative test to weigh adverse equality or human rights impacts against that useful purpose; nonetheless, having considered those impacts, dismissal was concluded to be proportionate and necessary in the public interest.
Judgments cited: Great Yarmouth BC v Al-Abdin [2022] EWHC 3476; Epping Forest DC v Somani Hotels Ltd & Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 264; Patel v SSCLG & Others [2016] EWHC 3354 (Admin)
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.