Appeal 6000179

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the appeal was lodged, the Council adopted the Barnet Local Plan 2021- 2036 (BLP). As a result, the BLP now forms part of the development plan. It has replaced Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (CS) and Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document (DMP), which are cited in the reasons for refusal. The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the relevant policies of the BLP during the appeal process. Planning decisions must be based on the development plan policies prevailing at the time of determination. I have proceeded on that basis.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed change of use would be acceptable, with particular regard to identified need and the supply of family housing; • the effect of the proposed development on visual and neighbouring residential amenity, with particular regard to the provision of waste storage; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of internal space in a first-floor bedroom; and • the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to car parking.

The proposed development seeks permission for the change of use from a four-bedroom single- family dwelling (Use Class C3) located in a predominately residential area to a House in [name] (HMO) for 6 people (Use Class C4).

The BLP prioritises the provision of family housing. The conversion of such accommodation to HMOs can undermine this priority in the BLP which due to its recent adoption, carries significant weight. Amongst other things, Policy HOU04 of the BLP requires proposals for new HMOs to demonstrate that they meet an identified need.

The Council’s SHMA identifies a need for diverse housing types, including shared accommodation. HMOs in providing low-cost accommodation, which is attractive to young professionals, students and key workers, can contribute to housing mix. Notwithstanding this, the Council has referred to Table 7 of the BLP as indicating a low need for 1-bedroom housing, which it considers would include HMOs.

Policy H9 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) requires Boroughs to take into account the role that HMOs play in meeting housing needs. Both Policy H9 and the SHMA are indicative of a general need for this type of housing, but I have not been directed to specific evidence that demonstrates a need for this type of accommodation in this location.

Limited evidence of approvals for HMOs in similar residential areas has been provided to support the appellant’s assertion that there is a strong demand for this type of accommodation. In any case, evidence of a level of demand is not the same as demonstrating there is an identified need as required by Policy HOU04.

The property benefits from a lounge, kitchen and family/dining area on the ground floor with bedrooms on upper floors. It also has a private rear garden and off-street parking. There is no reason why such accommodation would not continue to be suitable for family occupation.

On the evidence before me, I conclude that the proposal would not meet an identified need and would lead to a reduction, albeit modest, to the supply of four-bedroom single family homes. This would be contrary to Policy HOU04 of the BLP as referred to above. It would also conflict with Policy HOU02 which seeks to provide a mix of dwelling types and sizes to help meet current and future housing needs.

The HMO would have the potential to accommodate six unrelated individuals living independently of each other. As such, they would likely generate more refuse than a single, albeit larger household. Additional refuse storage would therefore be required.

The property has an area of front hardstanding for approximately two cars. It has not been demonstrated that this space could accommodate both waste storage and parking. No details of refuse storage have been submitted, in the absence of which it is likely that additional bins may be placed on the highway.

It appears to be common practice for residents along this part of Park Road to store their bins on the footpath, this typically numbers two bins per dwelling, one for general waste and recycling. These detract from the character and visual amenity of the area. The additional bins that would likely be required for the change of use would result in additional street clutter and would add to the harm. It may also adversely affect neighbouring amenity by creating a nuisance by way of noise and odour from several bins being opened and closed.

In conclusion, the proposal would not provide adequate refuse storage and would be harmful to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and the visual amenity of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy HOU04 of the BLP, which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that HMOs do not have a harmful impact on the amenities of the surrounding area or occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The Standards for HMOs- London Borough of Barnet (2022) requires the minimum floor area for any room to be used for sleeping to be [address] metres (sqm) for a single room and 14 sqm for a double room.

The evidence before me outlines how the first-floor bedroom, towards the front of the property measures 5.6 sqm. This figure is not disputed by the appellant. This bedroom, which would be the sole private living space for any future occupier, would therefore fall significantly below the required standard for an HMO and by virtue of this, would result in cramped and substandard living conditions for any future occupiers of this room.

Whilst other rooms would meet required space standards, this does not overcome the inadequate size of this first-floor bedroom. No alternative layouts or amended designs are before me to indicate how this could be overcome.

The scheme would therefore be contrary to Policy HOU04 of the BLP which requires proposals to comply with relevant standards.

The appeal site is located within a [name] (CPZ). It currently provides two off-street parking spaces. The site has a PTAL of 3 meaning there is moderate public transport accessibility to and from the site. On my late morning site visit, there was some evidence of moderate parking stress, with few parking spaces available. I am aware that this represents a snapshot in time but given the residential nature of the area, I have no reason to believe that what I saw is not representative. It is also likely that there would be an increased parking demand in the evenings and at weekends, or any time when the CPZ is not in operation.

The development could result in increased competition for parking spaces. This increased pressure could result in people driving around looking for spaces or potentially parking illegally which could have implications for highway and pedestrian safety and the free flow of traffic.

The Council have advised that a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) could mitigate this harm by restricting future occupiers from obtaining parking permits. This would discourage car ownership and therefore not add pressure to on-street parking in the area. However, no such obligation has been provided, and the harm would not be mitigated.

No details relating to cycle storage are before me. There are some public transport services, local facilities, a recreation ground and a shopping centre nearby. Nonetheless, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before me to demonstrate that car ownership amongst future occupiers would be low, thereby potentially reducing any future increase in parking demand.

The development would likely result in increased parking stress and would be detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety and the free flow of traffic. This would be contrary Policies T4, T6 and T6.1 of the LP. Together these policies seek to, amongst other things, ensure highway safety and reduce car dependency. The Council has not directed me to any specific policy conflicts with the BLP in regard to this matter.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.