Appeal 6000295

The appeal is dismissed.

For reasons of clarity, I have amended the description of development to reference the existing use of the property. The description of development in the heading above matches that in the decision notice and appeal form.

Since the planning application was determined, the Council has adopted the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (BLP). The BLP together with the London Plan (LP) 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). 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 regard to identified need, the supply of family housing and effect on the character of the area; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance; • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with regard to parking provision.

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

Amongst other things, Policy HOU04 of the BLP requires proposals for new HMOs to demonstrate that they meet an identified need. Limited evidence has been provided to support the appellant’s assertion that there is a demand for this type of accommodation.

I recognise the role of HMOs in providing low-cost flexible accommodation, which is attractive to young professionals, students and lower income individuals. However, a general level of demand is not the same as demonstrating there is an identified need as required by Policy HOU04.

Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the development meets an identified need.

In respect of the supply of family housing, the BLP highlights a significant need for family sized housing. It seeks to prioritise three-bedroom properties, for which there is the greatest need. The conversion of such accommodation to HMOs can therefore undermine this priority in the BLP which due to its recent adoption, carries significant weight. In addition, according to the Council’s evidence, the lowest need is for 1-bedroom units akin to the size of units which would be created by the appeal scheme.

Given the above, I therefore conclude that the development would lead to a reduction, albeit modest, to the supply of three-bedroom single family homes.

Regarding the effect on the character of the area, based on the evidence before me and what I could see on my site visit, the area is predominately characterised by single family dwellings. There is one other HMO on [address], this is the exception.

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

Whilst the proposal would 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. Although no external alterations are proposed, and the property may still resemble a single-family dwelling from the outside, the character of an area goes beyond the physical appearance of an area. It also encompasses how a development contributes towards local identity. For the above reasons, I consider that the development would cause harm to the character of the area.

To conclude on the main issue, based the evidence before me, I consider that the proposal would not meet an identified need, and would also result in harm to the character of the area. This would be contrary to Policy HOU04 of the BLP which seeks to ensure that HMO’s meet an identified need and do not have a harmful impact on the character of an area. It would also fail to accord with Policy D3 of the LP which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development responds to the character of an area.

Although not referenced in the refusal reason, the Council has drawn my attention to the schemes noncompliance with Policy HOU02 in their Statement of Case. The scheme would lead to a reduction, albeit modest, to the supply of three-bedroom single family homes and therefore it would conflict with this policy which seeks to provide a mix of dwelling types and sizes to help meet current and future housing needs.

The appellant has referenced the schemes compliance with Policy H16 of the LP. This policy relates to large scale purpose built shared living developments. I do not consider this policy to be relevant to the decision.

The proposed HMO could accommodate 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. 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, disturbance or disruption would be particularly evident to neighbouring occupants given the property’s proximity to other properties.

The appellant argues that the Council’s assessment is speculative and not based on evidence. However, for the reasons outlined above, these are reasonable assumptions to make.

I am not satisfied that soundproofing measures would sufficiently mitigate any additional noise and disturbance as this would only likely reduce noise from within the property, rather than external noise and disturbance. I am also not satisfied that the various measures set out in the HMO management plan, such as designated quiet hours and no amplified music outside would sufficiently mitigate any additional noise and disturbance.

For the reasons outlined above, the proposal would adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance. This would be contrary to Policies HOU04 and ECC02 of the BLP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure development respects the amenity of neighbouring residents, including minimising noise. It would also be contrary to Policy D3 and D14 of the LP. These policies seek to ensure that development prevents or mitigates the impacts of noise.

The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) score of 2, meaning it has poor access to public transport. It is also situated within a [name] (CPZ) in operation from 1-8pm.

The Council does not have specific parking standards for HMOs but refers to. Table 20 of the BLP, which requires a maximum of 1 parking space for a 3+ bed unit and 0.75 spaces for a 1/2 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.

It is unclear whether the Council would consider the proposed development a 3+ bed unit, or each bedroom as a 1 bed unit, for the purposes of the BLP. Nonetheless, the refusal reason references Policy T6.1 of the LP. I have therefore applied those standards. The site provides off-street parking for one car. This would be in line with the requirements as set out in the LP, which are maximum standards.

The Council outline how there are observable levels of parking stress in the area the development would under provide in respect of the anticipated parking demand. However, there is limited evidence before me to demonstrate these points. In any case, on my site visit there were a number of parking spaces available, however I am aware that this only represents a snapshot in time. Nonetheless, the proposed parking meets the standards as set out in the LP.

Given the above, I do not consider that a legal agreement to modify the traffic order to prevent future occupiers from applying for an on-street parking permit is necessary. There is insufficient evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposal would result in overspill parking on the highway and therefore be harmful to highway safety. The scheme is in accordance with Policy T6.1 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure that residential development does not exceed maximum parking standards.

Although not mentioned in the refusal reason, the Council has drawn my attention to Policy TRC03 of the BLP, in their Statement of Case. It outlines how this policy requires under provision within CPZ’s to be addressed through the restriction of access to residential parking permits. However as outlined above, I do not consider such a restriction to be necessary. I find no conflict with this policy in this regard.

I acknowledge the appellant’s willingness to work with the Council and provide amendments. No amended plans have however been received. In any case, an appeal should not be used to evolve a scheme. I have based my decision on the plans before me, which formed the basis of the Council’s decision. Given the nature of the refusal reasons, I am not satisfied that they could be addressed with planning conditions.

The site may be in a somewhat accessible location with access to [name]. It may also ensure adequate light, space and accessibility and the bedroom sizes may meet or exceed national standards. It may also incorporate sustainability measures. I am however not satisfied that any of the above considerations would outweigh the harm identified.

The proposal is acceptable with regards to providing adequate off-street parking. It would however result in harm with regards to a lack of an identified need for an HMO, the loss of a single-family dwelling, effect on character of the area and its impact on living conditions of 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.