Appeal 6000310

The appeal is dismissed.

I understand that the appellant has received planning permission under a separate planning application (25/1938/HSE) for extensions which are broadly similar to those applied for with this application. The Council raise no objection to the appearance of the extensions proposed as part of this appeal scheme. Based on the evidence before me, I find no reason to conclude otherwise.

Although not cited in the reasons for refusal, the Council’s case identified concerns regarding the impact of the rear extension on the living conditions of the future occupiers of bedroom 4. From the evidence submitted and my site observations, I do not consider the rear extension would compromise the outlook from this room, nor would it adversely affect light entering it. In any case, had I found harm in this regard, it would not have been determinative.

Therefore, main issues are:  whether the site is in a suitable location for the proposed use, with particular regard to the requirements of the Development Plan; and,  whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

Policy H9 of the London Plan 2021 identifies HMOs as an important part of London’s housing offer. Additionally, Barnet Local Plan 2025 (BLP) seeks to achieve a better housing balance including protecting family houses from conversions into smaller units, while delivering new converted homes in the right location. BLP Policy HOU03 which concerns residential conversions and Policy HOU04 concerning specialist accommodation, are relevant to this proposal.

[name]. of Policy HOU04 supports proposals for new HMOs where they meet specified criteria a) – d). The Council does not identify any conflicts with criteria a) – c), and based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to reach an alternative

Criterion d) requires that HMOs are easily accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. The supporting text for Policy HOU04 (paragraph 5.12.6) defines good accessibility as a public transport access level (PTAL) of 3 to 6. [name] of Policy HOU03 also requires sites to have existing or planned PTALs of 3 to 6 or to be located within 800 metres walking distance of a station or town centre boundary. The appeal site is located in an area with a PTAL of 1a, meaning that it has a very poor level of public transport accessibility.

The appellant states that the site is located on the strategic A41 corridor with bus services providing frequent and direct access to a number of locations. Whilst several bus services are listed, I have not been provided any other details, such as the location of bus stops, timetables or journey times. As such, I am not persuaded that the site has easy access to bus services.

I have had regard to the submitted [name] (Kronen, June 2025), which identifies that the site is [address] town centre and [address] to the university. It is stated that both destinations would fall within a suggested preferred maximum walking distance of 2000 metres for commuting. However, this threshold does not form part of the development plan policies against which this proposal is assessed. The site location exceeds the 800 metres walking distance to a town centre required by BLP Policy HOU03.

I understand that [name] 85 is accessible from [address], but I have not been provided with its location in relation to the site. It is also stated that the surrounding highway network has dedicated cycle lanes. However, no evidence of this has been submitted and I did not see cycle lanes in the vicinity of the appeal site during my site visit. The Transport Technical Note states that [name] is approximately 10 minutes cycle from the site, and I appreciate that the proposal makes provision for bike storage. Nevertheless, there is nothing submitted to demonstrate that the route between the site and the station is suitable and safe for cyclists.

The appellant states that future occupants would be served by convenience retail, schools and places of worship within walking distance. However, I have not been provided with the locations of such services and facilities, nor the walking routes and distances between them and the site. As such, I am not satisfied that the site is in a location which has easy access to services and facilities via walking.

I appreciate that the London Plan does not contain a minimum PTAL requirement for HMOs. I am also mindful that the National Planning Policy Framework encourages priority to be given to pedestrian and cycle movements as well as facilitating access to bus and other public transport services. However, based on the evidence submitted, along with my observations on site, I have found that the appeal site is not in a location which provides easy access to services and facilities via walking or cycling nor does it have easy access to public transport services. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that there is any justification to depart from the requirements of [name] HOU03 and HOU4 in this regard.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the site is not in a location which is easily accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. Accordingly, the site is not in a suitable location for the proposed use having regard to the requirements of [name] HOU03 and HOU04, as set out above.

[name] provide some shared facilities, they are, by definition, occupied by unrelated individuals. The pattern of occupation therefore differs materially from that of a single family dwelling. In an HMO, occupants can reasonably be expected to carry out day-to-day activities independently, with limited shared use of rooms other than the designated communal spaces. Unlike a family household, they would not typically undertake activities together or share the dwelling as a cohesive unit. It is therefore reasonable to expect that individual bedrooms in an HMO, which are not shared, provide an adequate level of privacy for the occupier.

Bedrooms 2 and 4 would be served by windows, with bedroom 4 additionally having a glazed door, onto the communal rear garden. The rear garden is of a generous size with a paved area immediately adjacent to the rear of the building. It is reasonable to assume that this area would be used by occupiers and their visitors for sitting out and other activities.

There is nothing to suggest that access to the garden would be restricted to the occupiers of bedrooms 2 and 4. Consequently, all users of the garden would have direct and unobstructed views into those rooms. I accept that a level of communal living is inherent in living in an HMO. I also appreciate that the Council’s Standards for Houses in [name] (adopted February 2022) does not set any specific requirements for rooms to be screened from communal spaces. Nevertheless, I find that this level of overlooking would unacceptably compromise the privacy of future occupiers of bedrooms 2 and 4.

It has been suggested that privacy screening for these bedrooms could be secured by condition in the event of the appeal being allowed. However, no details or examples of such screening have been provided. In the absence of such information, it is unclear whether any screening would result in unacceptable harm to daylight levels or to the outlook from these bedrooms. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the identified harm could be satisfactorily mitigated through the imposition of the suggested condition.

The Proposed Site Plan shows waste and bike storage at the front of the building close to the windows of bedrooms 1 and 3. The storage is not shown on the proposed elevations, however given their proximity and siting in relation to the windows, there may be some limited loss of outlook, particularly from bedroom 1. With respect to privacy, whilst someone accessing the waste or bike storage would, necessarily, be close to the bedroom windows, they are unlikely to dwell there in the same way, for example, as someone using the garden. Therefore, whilst I understand the Council’s reservations about the siting of the waste and bike storage, I do not find that the living conditions of the future occupiers of bedrooms 1 and 3 would be harmed.

Taking all of the above into account, I have found that the proposal would not harm the privacy and outlook of future occupiers of bedrooms 1 and 3. Nevertheless, I have found that it would unacceptably harm the privacy of the future occupiers of bedrooms 2 and 4. Consequently, the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for all future occupiers. As such, it conflicts with London Plan Policy D3 and BLP Policy CDH01 which together require development to provide a good standard of amenity with appropriate outlook and privacy.

The appellant’s evidence includes a letter from a local estate agent which suggests there is a demand for HMOs in Hendon, particularly from students attending Middlesex University. I also appreciate the proposal has support from a neighbour. Nevertheless, the positive weight afforded in those respects is outweighed by the harm I have identified above.

It is suggested that the existing dwelling may become underused if it is not converted. However, there is nothing before me to demonstrate that this is anything more than a theoretical possibility. Therefore, this consideration does not alter my findings on the main issues of this appeal.

Both the London Plan and the BLP support the positive contribution that HMOs can make to the housing mix in the right locations. However, I have found that the site is not in a location which is easily accessible via public transport, walking and cycling. Furthermore, the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for all future occupiers.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.