Appeal 6000187

The appeal is dismissed.

I have amended the description of development noted in the application form for reasons of clarity. The amended description references the provision of the refuse and cycle storage.

At the time of my site visit it appeared that the property was in use as an HMO. The refuse and cycle storage facilities however did not appear to be in situ. Nonetheless, ‘retrospective’ as referred to in the decision notice does not constitute an act of development. I have dealt with the appeal accordingly.

At appeal stage the appellant has submitted plans providing details of refuse and cycle storage and floor to ceiling heights. The Council and any interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on these plans. I have considered these plans in my decision.

Planning decisions must be based on the development plan policies prevailing at the time of determination. The Council has recently 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 reason for refusal. The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the relevant policies of the BLP during the appeal process.

The main issues are: • whether or not the change of use is acceptable, with particular regard to identified need, the supply of single-family housing, accessibility by sustainable modes of transport and effect on character of the area; • the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers, with regard to the provision of internal space; daylight, sunlight and outlook in bedroom 2 and outlook in bedroom 1; • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; • the effect of the development on the provision of parking and highway safety; • whether or not the development provides adequate cycle storage; and • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site relates to a five-bedroom mid-terrace property located in a predominately residential area of Barnet. The evidence before me outlines how the area surrounding the site largely comprises of single-family dwellings. Several properties along the road have been converted into flats.

Regarding identified need and the loss of single-family housing, 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.

Whilst there is no loss of residential floor space, if the scheme was allowed there would be a loss of a single-family dwelling. It is suggested that there is no reason why the appeal property could not be used as a family home. However, given the Article [address] in the Borough, if planning permission for use as an HMO (Use Class C4) was granted, planning permission to revert the use of the property back to a single-family dwelling house (Use Class C3) would also be required.

It is not disputed that there is a need to provide a range of housing sizes, types, and tenures to meet the needs of the growing population of Barnet and I recognise the role of HMOs in providing low-cost accommodation, which is attractive to young professionals, students and possibly key workers. However, a general level of demand is not the same as demonstrating there is an identified need as required by Policy HOU04.

My attention has been drawn to Policy H8 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) which relates to the loss of existing housing and estate redevelopment, including the demolition and replacement of affordable housing. Whilst the loss of existing housing would be replaced by new housing in the form of an HMO, this does not demonstrate an identified need, nor does it justify the loss of single-family housing.

I acknowledge that at present the HMO is used to house homeless people including refugees, prison leavers and people experiencing alcohol and/or drug dependency, in collaboration with Barnet Council. The Homelessness and [name] 2023-2028 seeks to, amongst other things, prevent homelessness, deliver the right homes in the right places and ensure safe, sustainable Council housing. Notwithstanding this, the scheme seeks permission for the change of use to an HMO (Use Class C4). The application form also indicates that the rooms would be marketed for rent. Therefore, whilst I acknowledge the current role the HMO plays in helping to address homelessness, I am not satisfied that this demonstrates an identified need, nor does it justify or outweigh the loss of a single-family dwelling.

On the evidence before me, I conclude that the development does not meet an identified need and results in a reduction, albeit modest, to the supply of single-family homes. This is contrary to Policy HOU03 and HOU04 of the BLP which seeks to prioritise single family housing and requires proposals for new HMOs to meet an identified need.

Turning to the accessibility of the HMO, Policy HOU04 of the BLP requires proposals for new HMOs to be ‘easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking.’ The supporting text to Policy HOU04 indicates that HMOs should be sited in areas with a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) score of 3-6. The appeal site has a PTAL score of 2.

Notwithstanding the above, the supporting text for Policy HOU03 takes a more flexible approach to the siting of residential conversions, stating that they could also be located within 800 metres walking distance of a station. Given the site’s proximity to Southgate train station, and the frequent various bus services and routes from [address], there is good accessibility to the site by public transport. Moreover, from my observations, the site is within a relatively short walking distance of a range of services and facilities on [address] and [address]. Therefore, notwithstanding its PTAL rating, I am satisfied the development accords with the accessibility objectives Policy HOU04 of the BLP.

Turning to the effect of the development on the character of the area, whilst there are some flats and another HMO on [address], these are in the minority. It is my view, based on the evidence before me and what I could see on my site visit, that the area is predominately characterised by single family dwellings.

The additional comings and goings of between five and six unrelated individuals at different times of the day and night and the associated increase in deliveries would all indicate the absence of a settled family. The comings and goings would be readily discernible due to the short, narrow and tight-knit residential street. This would contrast with and be harmful to the prevailing character of the area.

The lack of complaints regarding the HMO does not outweigh the harm that I have identified. Whilst the proposal may not lead to a cluster of HMO uses, this does not preclude it from having an unacceptable impact on the character of the area, nor does it outweigh the harm identified. For the above reasons, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the HMO does not have an unacceptable impact on the character of the surrounding area, it therefore fails to accord with Policy HOU04 of the BLP.

Overall, whilst the development is easily accessible by sustainable travel modes, it does not meet an identified need and leads to the loss of a single-family dwelling. It also has an unacceptable effect on the character of the area. This is contrary to Policy CDH01, HOU03 and HOU04 of the BLP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that development responds to local character and meets an identified need and prioritises family housing needs. Living conditions

Policy D6 of the LP outlines a minimum ceiling height of 2.5 metres (m) for at least 75 per cent of the gross internal area is required so that new housing is of adequate quality, especially in terms of daylight penetration, ventilation and cooling, and sense of space.

At appeal stage the appellant has provided a section to show the floor to ceiling heights. It is evident from this that a large proportion of the dwelling has a floor to ceiling height below 2.5 m. This reduced height is likely to result in issues regarding daylight penetration, ventilation and cooling and sense of place. For the reasons outlined above, the scheme fails to accord with Policy D6 of the LP in this regard. Bedroom 2

The window of bedroom 2 would largely face directly onto a two-storey wall at a relatively short distance, resulting in a poor outlook. A small part of the outlook would look down the narrow and long space between the existing side fence and flank wall of the dwelling. However, this too would result in a poor outlook with the views largely either being of a two-storey wall, or a close boarded fence. Whilst there may be some views of the sky, overall, the window would not provide what I consider to be a reasonable outlook.

Turning to the provision of daylight and sunlight, whilst the small gap down the side of the property would afford some sunlight, this would be for a very short period of time in the early evening. Furthermore, this would be largely impeded by the wall and fence. Daylight would also be relatively poor given the proximity of the wall and fence. For the reasons outlined above, I consider that bedroom 2 is not afforded adequate levels of daylight or sunlight.

Given the change of use to an HMO, the bedrooms would be occupiers sole private living space. The provision of indoor and outdoor communal amenity space therefore does not offset the need to provide acceptable living conditions in each of the bedrooms.

The room may still be a habitable room, with the same levels of outlook, daylight and sunlight, if the property was used as a single dwelling. However, occupiers of a single-family dwelling have more freedom to use other rooms if they find the level of outlook, sunlight or daylight in one room inadequate, Whereas, in an HMO the bedroom is the only place an occupier can privately inhabit. I have therefore afforded this consideration limited weight.

The lack of quantitative assessment relating to the inadequate outlook, sunlight or daylight from the Council does not outweigh the harm identified. In any case, the appellant has not provided any quantitative assessment to demonstrate that the bedroom would provide an acceptable standard of living.

Although the HMO benefits from an HMO license at present, the evidence before me indicates that this does not take into account considerations such as outlook, daylight and sunlight. I have therefore afforded this consideration limited weight in favour of the appeal. [name] acknowledge that the site is located in a densely built urban area where buildings are often constructed close to boundaries, this does not justify the harm identified.

For the reasons outlined above, the scheme fails to provide an acceptable standard of outlook, daylight and sunlight to the occupiers of bedroom 2. This is contrary to Policy CDH01 of the BLP and Policy D3 of the LP in this regard, which amongst other things, seek to ensure acceptable standards of amenity for occupiers. Bedroom 1

The Council’s fifth refusal reason outlines how the re-siting of the cycle storage to the front of the dwelling, when taken together with the proposed refuse storage would likely result in an undue impact on outlook from bedroom 1.

However, the submitted plans do not indicate that the cycle storage would be located to the front of the dwelling. The appellant has submitted a plan at appeal stage indicating that the cycle storage would be situated to the rear of the site, and a bin store would be provided to the front of the dwelling.

Whilst the bin store would be in proximity to the window serving bedroom 1, it would be situated against the front boundary and measure approximately 1.3 metres in height. Its relatively low height, coupled with the height of the windows which extend upwards close to the eaves of the front porch would ensure adequate outlook is maintained. In addition, the side elements of the bay window face outwards at an angle. Given this, their outlook would be relatively unaffected by the bin store.

Bedroom 1 would therefore be provided with acceptable levels of outlook, in accordance with Policy CDH01 of the BLP and Policy D3 of the LP.

Overall, whilst the scheme would provide an acceptable standard of outlook to bedroom 1, it fails to provide the minimum ceiling height for at least 75 per cent of the gross internal area, and fails to provide an acceptable standard of outlook, daylight and sunlight to bedroom 2. This is contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the LP and Policies CDH01 of the BLP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure acceptable standards of amenity for occupiers.

According to the evidence before me, the proposal would result in an additional two bedrooms, in comparison to its use as a single-family dwelling. The HMO has the potential to house up to six unrelated individuals, however given one bedroom would house two people, it is likely that these two occupiers would be known to one another.

The occupants would have differing independent lives and living, working and social patterns, with comings and goings at different times of the day and night as well as an increased frequency of home deliveries. The use of the property as an HMO would therefore generate more activity, and thus noise and disturbance, than its use as a conventional single-family dwelling as people would be living independently.

The site is located within a predominately residential area characterised by single-family dwellings and forms part of a terrace of dwellings. The frequency and nature of the activities associated with use as an HMO would result in undue noise and disturbance which would be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. Any noise and disturbance would be particularly evident to neighbouring occupants given the property’s proximity to other properties.

The appellant outlines how as a single dwelling the property could accommodate 6 people, which is the same amount as the HMO. They also outline how all properties on the street would be subject to refuse collections and use of garden area. However, for reasons outlined previously, the use of the property as an HMO is different to its use a single-family dwelling. The frequency and nature of activities associated with the use an HMO would result in additional noise and disturbance, in comparison to its use as a single-family dwelling.

The evidence outlines how there is another HMO situated on [address]. It may be the case there are no issues associated with this HMO; however, this would not outweigh the harm identified. In any case, the evidence outlines how this HMO does not benefit from planning permission. The use of dwellings as flats is not directly comparable to the property’s use as an HMO. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that only one property on the street has planning permission for use as flats. I have afforded these considerations limited weight in favour of the appeal.

The lack of complaints associated with the appeal property’s use an HMO does not outweigh the harm identified. Furthermore, the Council’s case officer report indicates that at the time of its site visit, the property was not in use as an HMO. It therefore may be the case that the property has been operating as an HMO for a relatively short period of time.

A tenancy agreement/management plan has been submitted at appeal stage. Whilst this does outline various measures aimed at reducing noise nuisances such as not slamming doors, I am not satisfied that this would sufficiently minimise any additional noise and disturbance from additional comings and goings.

The lack of external alterations or additions does not equate to a lack of harm to the living conditions of neighbours.

For the reasons outlined above, the scheme is likely to adversely affects the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. It therefore fails to accord with Policies D3 and D14 of the LP and Policy CDH01 of the BLP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure neighbouring amenity, including reducing and mitigating noise.

The site does not benefit from any off-street parking. No parking standards for HMO uses have been brought to my attention. Nonetheless, Policy TRC03 of the BLP requires a maximum standard of one parking space for a 3+ bed unit in an area with a PTAL of 2. Policy T6.1 of the LP requires up to one space per dwelling for a dwelling with 3+ beds in such a location. The LP outlines how these standards should not be exceeded. The Council accept that the property would be subject to these maximum standards.

Using these standards, the scheme does not result in an additional parking requirement, in comparison to its lawful use as a single-family dwelling. As there is no additional parking requirement, a parking survey to demonstrate that the scheme does not result in overspill parking, thereby impact highway safety is not necessary.

The Council suggests that the property attracts a maximum potential demand of five parking spaces. There is however limited evidence before me to demonstrate this. In any case, they have accepted that the property would be subject to the maximum standards as set out in the BLP and LP.

For the reasons above, the development accords with Policy TRC03 of the BLP and Policies T4 and T6.1 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that residential development does not exceed maximum parking standards and does not increase highway danger.

Cycle storage for six bicycles would be provided in the rear garden area of the property. Occupiers would have to carry or wheel their bicycles through the large patio doors in the kitchen/living area and through the hallway to get them in/out of the property due to the lack of side access.

The hallway area is not so excessively narrow as to discourage occupiers from moving bicycles from the front to the rear of the house and vice versa. Whilst moving the bicycles may involve some very brief disruption if others are using the communal areas, this would only be momentarily.

The movement of the bicycles may leave some wet areas on the floor if it has been raining, however it could be reasonably presumed that occupiers would wipe any wet areas. Furthermore, as outlined previously the site is in walking distance to services and facilities and public transport links. Occupiers may therefore only cycle for certain journeys. Any disruption from moving bicycles is therefore unlikely to be consistently throughout the day.

There is no evidence before me to demonstrate that unrelated adults occupying the property would be more likely to cycle than a single family. In any case, for the reasons outlined above I do not consider that the proposed arrangement would be so impractical so as to warrant a refusal of the scheme.

For the reasons outlined above, the scheme would provide adequate and acceptable cycle storage. It would accord with Policy TRC03 of the BLP and Policy T4 of the LP in this regard. Amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure cycle parking.

The Councils fifth refusal reason outlines how the re-siting of the cycle storage to the front, when taken together with the proposed refuse storage would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host property. However, plans submitted at appeal stage indicate that the cycle storage would be provided to the rear of the property. In addition, the original plans did not indicate that it would be provided to the front of the property.

Given the positioning of the cycle storage to the rear of the property, views of it from the street scene would be extremely limited. In any case, it would have the appearance of a small shed. Such structures are not uncommon within the rear garden areas of properties. I therefore consider that it would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area, including the host property.

The proposed bin store would be set behind a front boundary wall. It would also measure 1.3 metres in height, as indicated on the submitted plans. The existing boundary wall would provide some screening. The bin store would have a simple design with a slanted roof and would complement the character of the area.

Given the bin stores small scale, any impact on the street scene would be negligible. Furthermore, it appears to be relatively common practice along [address] to keep bins to the front of the dwelling, behind front boundary treatments.

For the reasons above, I therefore consider that the proposed bin store and cycle store would respond positively to the local character of the area and have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. The scheme would therefore be in accordance with Policy CDH01 of the BLP in this regard. This policy, amongst other things, seeks to promote high quality design.

The appellant has queried the need for a number of the Council’s suggested conditions. [name] am dismissing the appeal I have not considered these further.

The appeal property is not listed and is not located in a CA. These are however considered to be neutral factors and do not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal.

The proposal is acceptable with regards to the accessibility of the site to sustainable modes of transport, the outlook to bedroom 1, parking provision and highway safety, cycle storage and the effect on character and appearance of the area with regards to the positioning of the bin and cycle store. It would however result in harm with regards to a lack of identified need for an HMO, the loss of a single-family dwelling, effect on character of the area, impact on living conditions of occupiers by way of insufficient floor to ceiling height and occupiers of bedroom [address] of inadequate outlook, daylight and sunlight and to neighbouring occupiers by way of noise and disturbance.

It would therefore conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole and the appeal should be dismissed.