Summary
- The upcoming Short-Term Let Registration Scheme, due to come into effect in England in March 2027, will bring increased visibility to the self-catering sector, likely to result in increased political and regulatory pressure and the potential for the weaponisation of the Planning System against self-catering landlords.
- Reflecting on the lessons from Scotland (where such visibility has existed for three years owing to a licensing-based scheme), existing self-catering operators are strongly advised to address the planning status of their properties now, before the registration schemes proposed for other parts of the UK come into effect.
- Those who benefit from 10 years of existing use will be potentially best placed to do this, but a number of other options exist which operators are strongly advised to make use of before their usefulness becomes diminished.
The Issue
It has been confirmed that a register of short-term let properties in England will come into effect in March 2027, with registration mandatory for those offering short-stay overnight accommodation from that date.
New data shows that the sector is flourishing across the UK, with an 11.5% increase in guest nights booked via online platforms such as Airbnb in 2025 compared with the previous 12-month period, meaning there were 100,911,620 guest nights spent in short-term lets in the UK in 2025.
Wales (where a registration scheme is also about to come into effect) had the largest increase in guest nights among individual UK countries, rising by 17.4%, while England rose by 11.1% (increasing by 22.2% in some areas).
The Dangers
It is no secret that the UK government has been seeking greater controls over short-term letting, with Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy reportedly confirming that the new Prime Minister had asked her to "accelerate" plans for greater controls on short-let accommodation in his first week in the job.
Other Ministers and MPs have not been shy about their intentions, using language which has now become sadly all too familiar to Scottish self-catering operators.
Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook has already repeatedly expressed his view that excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes impact the availability and affordability of homes for local residents, whilst unambiguously advising that the government "are considering what additional powers we might give local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures created by short-term lets and second homes."
Even more alarmingly, Labour MP Joe Powell has been similarly forthright when setting out their perceived frustrations, stating "we still do not have a way of identifying where these (short-term) lets are so that enforcement action can be taken."
If the lessons already learned in Scotland are not sufficient, the unambiguous threat posed by these sentiments above should serve as a wake-up call to the short-let community across the UK. Whilst the proposal for a registration scheme stops short of some of the more onerous measures adopted in Scotland's licensing scheme, for those of us who have seen the Scottish scheme in action, the register will represent the thin end of a potentially very thick wedge.
The Scottish Lesson
Registration brings visibility, and with visibility comes the risk of enforcement, even against longstanding self-catering uses.
Without seeking to be alarmist, let us nevertheless be clear: in 2017, very few in Scotland could have predicted the full extent of regulatory pressures that would evolve to face self-catering landlords. Regulation was scant, and Planning Enforcement was rare, with many authorities taking the view that (in the absence of a specific "short-term let" Use Class) short-term letting was "just another residential use", which was entirely in their gift to consider lawful or turn a blind eye to.
On that basis, many landlords were actively discouraged from pursuing Certificates of Lawfulness, which would have subsequently protected their investments and businesses.
Many thought it was better to stay below the radar or were convinced to save money on planning fees related to applications considered otiose. Some were actively told this by planning authorities themselves. Others were so advised by advisory bodies or private consultants.
Perhaps those strategies were rational at the time they were explored. However, for so many in Scotland, their usefulness did not survive the continued growth of the sector, and the added visibility brought by licensing arrangements which put self-catering uses squarely in the view of the public and politicians.
Regulatory attitudes hardened in the face of that visibility. Enforcement actions increased in aggressiveness, frequency and scope. Development Plans and non-statutory planning policies were updated to include considerations around "loss of housing", making Planning Permission applications for changes of use to short-term letting more difficult to achieve.
As is set out below, uses which could have likely achieved a Certificate of Lawfulness or Planning Permission in the past suddenly found themselves "out of options" in planning terms.
The self-catering industry continues to grow in England and Wales, with the additional tenants' rights contained in recent changes to housing and tenancy law likely to see a further explosion in numbers opting to "short-term let" their rental properties.
In this, there are yet more direct parallels with Scotland, which saw housing legislation and tenants' rights strengthened considerably from December 2017, leading to rapid further expansion of the self-catering sector.
Coupled with the upcoming registration scheme, it seems almost certain that political attitudes towards short-term letting will continue to harden across large parts of the rest of the UK, just as they have across an ever-growing portion of Scotland.
Scotland, so often a barometer of political and legal action to follow across the UK (please also see recent proposals to allow for "tourist tax" style visitor levies across parts of England, mirroring those already adopted across Scotland), therefore provides several useful lessons.
The overarching conclusion from Scotland is that only those who acted early to secure their planning rights now find themselves in a position of comfort.
The Advice
Our advice is therefore clear: taking steps to secure the planning status of your self-catering, short-term let operation now (before matters become more contentious) is a sensible step which all operators should strongly consider. We look at what options exist below, as well as expanding upon why it is important that immediate action is considered.
The 10-Year Option
Those potentially best placed will be operators who can demonstrate 10 years of continuous operation. Such uses are rendered lawful by operation of law, with local authorities afforded little scope to refuse applications for Certificates of Lawfulness, even if they would prefer to do so (Sections 191 and 171B, Town and Country Planning Act 1990).
There are still risks here, though. The legal provisions around such applications can be considerably nuanced and often opaque, and any application should be competently framed and deployed.
Furthermore, Planning is one of the only areas of law where subsequent Enforcement Action can effectively destroy a previously held legal right (essentially taking away the opportunity to conduct activity which the law has previously made explicitly lawful) (Section 285(1), 1990 Act).
The Courts have made it clear that, once an Enforcement Notice takes effect, the chance to demonstrate 10 years' use is lost forever, irrespective of what additional evidence might be subsequently uncovered or brought to an authority's attention (and whether or not being produced to subsequently obtain a Certificate or as a defence to criminal prosecution) (Staffordshire County Council v BJ Challinor [2007] EWCA Civ 864; R v Smith (Thomas George) [1985] JPL 1982; City of Westminster v Davenport & Anor [2010] EWHC 2016 (QB) at [18]).
The required 10-year evidence for some Certificate of Lawfulness applications can take weeks or months to adequately compile against the balance of probabilities (the relevant evidentiary test). Where a Planning Enforcement Notice is served, a "race against the clock" can therefore develop, as the recipient operator strives to source, rationalise and (usefully) present their evidence of immunity before the Notice takes effect.
For this reason alone, those who think they have accrued 10-year immunity are best advised to address the matter now, in consultation with an experienced consultant planner or solicitor who can advise on the strength of their case, point out any pitfalls and help overcome any potential legal difficulties.
The "Materiality" Option
The above does not mean to suggest that only those landlords whose properties have been in self-catering use for more than 10 years can take proactive, protective steps. It is still possible to demonstrate that other existing (or even proposed) self-catering uses are lawful in planning terms.
This is particularly true of houses and other main door properties and in areas where the issue of self-catering use has not (yet) become contentious locally. Again, an early mover advantage may exist, as set out below.
In the absence of a substantive Use Class for Short-Term Letting, whether or not the use of a given property for self-catering accommodation requires planning permission is, the courts have held, "a matter of fact and degree". This means that planning authorities (and the appeal Inspectorate) are empowered to look at a given use and assess it against "planning considerations" before deciding if the change in use (to self-catering) is "material" in nature (Sheila Moore v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Suffolk Coastal District Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1202 at [27]; see also Section 55, Town and Country Planning Act, setting out that "development" is construed as, inter alia, "material" changes of use).
The issue here is that those "planning considerations" are poorly defined, with no explicit definition in statute or case law. The courts have further suggested that such considerations "vary from case to case" (ibid, at [17], citing Diplock LJ, Wilson v West Sussex County Council [1963] 2 QB 764).
Different authorities hold different views of which physical, contextual and usage characteristics are material. However, most agree that matters can include (inter alia): the number of people constituting the visiting groups on many occasions; the likely frequency of party-type activities, and the potential lack of consideration for neighbours.
The system therefore clearly provides for significant subjective scope in decision-making.
The effect of this is that, where an authority feels little pressure from self-catering uses, Certificates of Lawfulness may be forthcoming, so long as the correct arguments can be framed and set out.
In contrast, once an authority feels that self-catering uses are a political hot-topic, they feel greater pressure to deny such Certificates, using the wide subjective scope afforded to them to do this, with subsequent Courts unable to substitute their view for that of the first instance (or appeal) authorities, barring Wednesbury irrationality.
Remember, previous Certificate of Lawfulness decisions are not binding in the way some court decisions are. Whilst previous cases may be persuasive, and an experienced consultant will know how to leverage similar cases (and applicable law) to the maximum degree, operators cannot rely on an authority granting Certificates to certain types of self-catering properties historically (or even recently) to overcome a subsequent change in attitude or policy.
This is no more clearly demonstrated than in Edinburgh, where Certificates of Lawfulness were issued in respect of flatted dwellings in short-stay self-catering use as late as the end of 2020, on the basis that such uses would "not be substantially different from the established residential character" of those areas involved (108 Crewe Road West, Edinburgh, 20/04697/CLP, Summary, 29 October 2020).
Similarly, even more recently, a number of similarly favourable appeal decisions were issued by the DPEA (the Scottish equivalent of the Planning Appeals Inspectorate).
Such decisions included that of 24 Royal Mile Mansions, 50 North Bridge, Edinburgh (ENA-230-2237), which as late as February 2023 (a period when Scotland's licensing scheme was in effect but not yet mandatory) set out that the use of a flat for short-term, self-catering use need not require planning permission.
Fast-forward and add the effect of a licensing scheme and self-declared "housing emergency" (declared 15 May 2024, just over 8 months after Scotland's self-catering operators were compelled to place their self-catering uses onto various public registers) and, as any self-catering landlord in Edinburgh will now tell you, the chances of obtaining similar decisions now are all but zero.
To see this effect demonstrated, we can compare the decision above (taken during less contentious times) with more recent decisions (taken after the Scottish Licensing Scheme led to mandatory registration of self-catering uses).
Both ENA-230-2237, above, and ENA-230-2370 (coming later) involved the use of similar flats, for similar self-catering purposes within the same building at "Royal Mile Mansions", 50 North Bridge, a central location, and one of the busiest and visitor-focussed parts of the city.
In the earlier decision, the appeal Reporter concluded that self-catering use within the building did not require planning permission. Material to this conclusion were the findings that:
"There are 55 flats within this block. It is not feasible that the occupiers would all be familiar with each other even by sight." (ENA-230-2237 at [17], February 2023)
Furthermore, it was considered that, given "the wide cctv coverage of the building, access control to the building and a concierge or reception service… I do not find that the (self-catering) use gives rise to any materially different security concerns than the lawful use would." (ibid)
These findings may have given comfort to the operators of similar self-catering properties within the building, who (reflecting on the above) may have felt safe from subsequent Enforcement Action, and therefore (on that basis) did not apply for Certificates of Lawfulness.
With hindsight, this was shown to have been a mistake. Less than two years after the decision above, Planning Enforcement action was taken against the neighbouring property at Flat 1, 50 North Bridge. An appeal against the Enforcement Notice, raised on identical grounds to the appeal referred to above, was refused, with it being noted that:
"Although a concierge is present …… the presence of a series of unknown guests would, in my view, have affected the amenity of neighbouring residents and their sense of security." (ENA-230-2370 at [12] and [13], May 2025)
In the face of the above, the Enforcement action became effective, and the use (having persisted for 8 years at the point of service of the Notice and taking place in one of the most lucrative areas of Scotland for self-catering landlords) was forcibly discontinued.
The only point of contextual difference that we can see between the two cases above (one considered lawful, and the other not) was that, in the period between them, Scotland's Short-Term Let Licensing Scheme became mandatory, leading to ever-increasing pressure on authorities (local and national) to address these (now much more visible) uses.
We now also sadly see similar "opportunities lost" in other authority areas, including Glasgow, where the authority has recently undertaken to develop a more "restrictive" understanding of the use rights afforded to the owners of houses under Use Class 9, as set out by the Town and Country (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997.
This begs the very salient question of how many landlords, who might have been able to previously secure a finding of Lawfulness, have now lost the opportunity in the face of additional pressures on their authorities to restrict the loss of housing thought (by many) to result from self-catering uses.
Learning from this, and as with 10-year applications above, it is therefore considered that qualifying operators should raise Certificate of Lawfulness applications now, before the upcoming registration Scheme provides the potential for any further hardening of local authority attitudes.
This is particularly the case where an authority is currently content to issue Certificates on a "no material change of use" basis. Experienced consultants are able to advise on current attitudes in any given area, wherever in the country it may be, allowing operators to make informed decisions.
Planning Permission: The Final Option
The denial of a Certificate of Lawfulness does not necessarily mean that the self-catering use in question cannot nevertheless be regularised via the planning system. Such an eventuality would, however, mean that Planning Permission was required to govern the "material" change of use. Just because Planning Permission is required does not mean it cannot be obtained.
The lesson from Scotland is, once again, to look to secure Planning Permission before matters become contentious.
Development proposals are assessed for compliance against "Development Plans", which encompass elements of local and national planning policy.
Most authorities look at whether or not a change of use application can be granted through the lens of neighbouring amenity. Traditionally, arguments centred on the matter of disturbance to neighbours, which significantly compartmentalised (or isolated) uses capable of achieving permission.
More recently, however, there is a growing trend towards engaging "loss of housing" during determination of such applications.
Scottish operators have seen the effect of such changes on their ability to obtain planning permission. For example, where "amenity" was the principal consideration, there were various examples of Planning Permission applications for self-catering uses being historically granted, in Edinburgh and elsewhere. Interested parties should note, inter alia, the 2021 decision 10A Blenheim Place, Edinburgh, 21/06615/FUL, for an example of this.
In 2023, the Scottish Government's adoption of National Planning Framework 4 significantly strengthened local authorities' ability to refuse such applications where "housing issues" existed, introducing a "balancing" provision based on the respective economic benefit of the short-term let proposal against the effect of the loss of that dwelling (NPF 4, Policy 30 (e) (ii), February 2023).
Whether or not the loss of a "dwelling" to self-catering use is justified is a subjective matter in any given case, and since 2023 the number of Planning Permission applications granted for short-term letting uses in Scotland has significantly diminished, despite a glut of applications prompted by increasing Planning Enforcement pressures, particularly in the capital.
Indeed, we now regularly see Planning Permission applications being refused under circumstances where they would have previously been granted.
Appeal decisions such as PPA-230-2594 (26 East Preston Street, Newington, Edinburgh, February 2026) and PPA-230-2638 (33 Dublin Lane North, Edinburgh, December 2025) represent instances where the ONLY matters leading to the ultimate refusal of Planning Permission were the "balancing considerations" engaged by loss of housing.
Had these applications (each of which was retrospective, engaging a longstanding use - albeit one which had not persisted for 10 years) been made earlier, they would have been granted.
Elsewhere in the UK, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, August 2026) does not directly introduce a "balancing" provision. However, many local authorities have nevertheless developed or deployed such measures in the face of pressures (or perceived pressures) on their housing stocks, and the potential exists that such policies might be more widely deployed nationally in future.
For examples of English authorities adopting more restrictive attitudes towards "non-residential" uses, readers may seek to research Brighton and Hove Council's recent restrictive treatment of HMO uses (another type of non-mainstream residential use capable of being addressed by licensing or registration), which would previously have been considered either permitted development, or (otherwise) capable of being regularised via Planning Permission, (Brighton and Hove Council, City Plan Part 2, Policy DM7, October 2022).
There is therefore a real risk that, in many areas, the Registration Scheme will encourage local or national authorities to adopt such policies in respect of self-catering uses (or where such policies are already extant to apply them more restrictively).
In this eventuality, as has been seen in Scotland, waiting before making a Planning Permission application (or perhaps waiting until being directed or compelled by the local authority to make one) may represent an opportunity lost. As with the Scottish examples above, applications which would currently be granted might be refused if considered against more future, more restrictive, policies or exercises in "planning judgment."
Use Class Considerations
Whilst the (currently suggested) formation of a new Use Class for Short-Term letting in England might provide some future comfort for existing operators, this has not yet been confirmed.
Furthermore, the future development of a short-let Use Class would not avail any use that had not started prior to its adoption.
Seeing how various Welsh authorities have reacted to the introduction of such a Use Class (immediately taking steps under Article 4 to restrict resulting rights for operators in many cases), it cannot be assumed that (the as yet notional) Use Class C5 will provide universal assistance to English self-catering landlords.
Operators should seek specialist advice regarding any proposed new Use Class that might (in future) be proposed for implementation, to ensure they are fully aware of its likely effect in their circumstances.
The Conclusion
Taking all of the above together, it is once again recommended that action be taken now, ahead of the Registration Scheme coming into effect. There is little to no advantage to waiting to address the planning status of a self-catering property, and delays may result in significant risk, including to existing rights.
Only those who are completely convinced that there is no useful way of addressing their property's planning status should be tempted to continue to "head their heads down and hope for the best." Even then, such operators would be well advised to discuss their situations with a planning consultant or solicitor.
Book a free 15-minute consultation or start a Certificate of Lawfulness application.
---
Ross Armstrong, LLB (Hons), MA Head of Professional Services, STL Solutions
Need expert help with your STL?
Whether it's licensing, planning permission, or compliance - our team can help you navigate the complexity.
Book Free Consultation
