Appeal 6000304

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The development has already been implemented. The planning application was submitted retrospectively, and I am considering the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are: i) the suitability of the development in this location having regard to the development plan policies in relation to houses in multiple occupation (HMOs); and, ii) the effect of the development on highway safety, in terms of parking.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey mid-terraced property located in a predominantly residential area. The area is generally characterised by two-storey dwellings which have a consistent appearance. Most of the properties, including the appeal property, have small front driveways. The site is located in London’s Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) 1b area. There appears to be no controlled parking zone (CPZ) relating to this part of [site address] .

Policy HOU4 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) (BLP) defines how proposals for HMOs will be assessed in the Borough. Criterion a) requires that they meet the Council’s HMO Licensing Schemes and any relevant standards for HMOs. Criterion b) requires that they meet an identified need and do not create a harmful concentration of such uses in the local area. Criterion c) requires that they will not have a harmful impact on the character and amenities of the surrounding area, and states that a HMO Management Plan may be sought to protect living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. Criterion d) requires that they are easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking.

The property has a HMO licence. There is also nothing before me to suggest that it does not comply with any relevant Council standards for HMOs. Therefore, the development complies with criterion a.

On my site visit I observed no adverse impacts on the appearance of the street as a result of parking and refuse, although my visit occurred in the working day when on-street parking, required by occupiers of the HMO, could be in lower demand. The driveway had the same number of bins as most of the other properties in the area. Furthermore, due to its small size, the driveway only had one car parked on it with no space for other cars, similar to most of the other properties in the area. Overall, I see little evidence of any discernible difference between the HMO and most of the other properties in the area, to the extent that harm would occur to the character of the area.

Since the appeal seeks planning permission for a small HMO in Use Class C4, it could only be occupied by between three to six unrelated individuals, rather than the ten referred to by the Council. Furthermore, given the small size of the driveway, any additional vehicle movements associated with the number of occupiers would likely have to take place on the road and away from the building. There is also little evidence before me which demonstrates how up to six occupiers would cause significantly more noise and disturbance, compared to a family dwelling which could have multiple children. Even if this was the case, the appellant would be willing to accept a condition for a HMO Management Plan, which could include noise mitigation measures. Accordingly, the development would not be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

For the above reasons, the development would comply with criterion c and would not be unacceptably harmful to the character of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The evidence before me indicates that the development would not result in an overconcentration of HMOs in the area. However, criterion b also requires that the HMO meets an identified need. Although the appellant refers to the cost of housing, the high occupancy of the HMO, as well as the need for professional people to live in HMOs as indicating a need, this is not supported by any detailed analysis of the need for HMOs in Barnet. In contrast, the Council’s evidence shows that the greatest housing need in Barnet is for larger family dwellings. Consequently, whilst I accept that HMOs provide an important contribution to the mix of housing, it does not follow that there is a clear and identified need for the HMO, at least from the evidence before me. Therefore, the development is contrary to criterion b.

The site’s location in a PTAL 1b area indicates that it has poor accessibility to public transport. This is consistent with my observations from my site visit. I note that the main parties disagree over the distance from the site to [name]. I do not know which distance provided is correct. However, I walked to this station from the site, and it took approximately 20 minutes. I do not consider this to be an easy walking distance, especially for those who are less mobile. The site is also over a kilometre from [name] which is again a significant walking distance. Whilst there are some bus stops closer on [address], these are still a fair walking distance from the site, and I do not have the full details of the extent of their services. Consequently, the site is not easily accessible by public transport, and it is therefore contrary to criterion d.

Taking these factors together, I conclude that the proposed development would not be suitable in this location. It is contrary to the objectives of Policy HOU4 of the BLP, which requires that there is an identified need for HMOs and that they are easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking. It would also be contrary to the objectives of Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP), which requires that developments are the most appropriate land use for the site.

On this main issue, the Council cite conflict with Policies CDH01 and ECC02 of the BLP and Policy D14 of the LP and the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) and [name] and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (2016). However, as these are concerned with design quality, environmental considerations and noise, the development would not be contrary to the objectives of these policies. However, this does not overcome the conflict with the aforementioned policies.

The appellant states that the driveway would provide at least two car parking spaces and that it could accommodate more. However, this contrasts with my observations on my site visit, where it appeared to have space for one car only. There are no plans before me which indicate that two cars could fit on the driveway and I am unconvinced that this could be achieved.

The Council state that the development requires 6.25 – 7.5 car parking spaces. This is based on Table 10.3 of Policy T6.1 of the LP, also referred to in Policy TR03 of the BLP. It is based on a provision of 1.5 spaces per bedroom, albeit this relates to residential uses generally. Although the standards are maximum and they aren’t specific to HMOs, the HMO has five bedrooms and could have up to six occupiers. Therefore, the lower end of the Council’s parking requirements seems reasonable as all the occupiers could have cars, especially in the context of the site’s location in PTAL 1b and its subsequent poor access to public transport connections.

I note the appellant’s reference to Table 20 of Barnet’s parking standards, which refers to 1.5 spaces for a 3-bedroom unit in PTAL 1 areas. However, a 3-bedroom unit, in use as a family dwelling, is more likely to have two adult occupiers. Hence it would have a smaller number of cars in most situations and thus a reduced parking demand. The parking requirements specified by the Council seem more realistic since it would more suitably cater for the anticipated needs of a HMO.

The site’s one car parking space is a significant shortfall of the Council’s standards. Therefore, it is unlikely to meet the parking demands of the development. This would result in additional on-street parking demand. Whilst there doesn’t appear to be a CPZ at the site and there was some on-street space during my site visit, this was just a snapshot in time. Parking pressure is likely to be greater in the evenings and weekends where people are more likely to be at home. A parking survey would be able to demonstrate whether local roads could accommodate the anticipated overspill parking requirements of the proposal. In the absence of a parking survey to suggest otherwise, the significant shortfall of parking would be likely to result in harm to highway safety. This would result in increased parking stress on [site address] , resulting in inconsiderate and potentially unsafe parking that would be detrimental to the free-flow of traffic.

It would not be appropriate to provide a parking survey via condition. This is because in the event that the survey concluded that the parking demand cannot be met on the road, there is little evidence before me that any additional off-street car parking spaces could be provided on site. Furthermore, the provision of cycle storage would not be sufficient to offset the harm in terms of the lack of parking at the site.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to highway safety, in terms of parking. It would be contrary to Policies T4 and T6.1 of the LP and Policy TR03 of the BLP, which amongst other matters, require that developments do not increase road danger and that developments should limit car parking in accordance with the LP.

The economic and social benefits of the development, in terms of local spend as well as providing multiple occupancy housing are not of a sufficient magnitude to outweigh the conflict found with the development plan.

The absence of third-party objections to the development, as well as a lack of harm in terms of the living conditions for future occupiers are neutral factors which do not weigh in favour of the appeal. The absence of the opportunity for the appellant to pursue negotiations is also not a reason to allow the appeal. Furthermore, the appellant’s suggested conditions would not make an otherwise unacceptable development acceptable.

The site is located in the Watling Estate Conservation Area (CA). The effect of the development on the CA is not a matter in dispute between the main parties. Even so, I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. Given that the development is a change of use to the appeal property only, it would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the CA. Therefore, it would not result in harm to the significance of the CA.

[name] have found that the development would not result in unacceptable harm in terms of character and appearance and living conditions, I have found that it would be harmful in terms of its access to public transport, its identified need, as well as with regards to highway safety. Therefore, the development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole, and there are no other material considerations which would outweigh this conflict. For these reasons, I recommend that the appeal is dismissed. [name] (APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER)

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.