Appeal 6000382

The appeal is dismissed. Appeal B Ref: 6000382

The appeal is dismissed.

As set out above there are two appeals on this site for the change of a single family dwelling house to a House in [name] (HMO). They differ in the number of units and persons accommodate and therefore constitute either a use Class C4 or a [name] accordingly. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated.

The main issues in both appeals are the effect of the proposals on: • The character of the local area; and • The living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. Appeal Decisions 6000891, 6000382

The appeal dwelling is a three storey semi-detached house. This is located on a quiet street made up of residential properties that vary in type and scale. These are a mixture of single family dwelling houses, flat conversions from original houses and small purpose built flatted developments. The street is located in a wider area that reflects a similar mix of residential properties and quiet character.

The appeal dwelling is a single family dwelling house, but it has been in use as a larger House in [name] (HMO) ([name] use) for some time. Although licensed by the Council as a HMO, it does not have the benefit of a planning permission for this use.

The change of a larger single family dwelling house (Class C3) to a small HMO (Class C4), or to a larger HMO ([name]), would involve the loss of a larger dwelling house to the borough’s housing asset. Policy HOU02 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-236 (2025) prioritises the need for larger residential single family houses and identifies that this a residential type that has been in short supply within the borough and for which there is an identified need, significantly greater than that for smaller residential units. Policy HOU04 of the Local Plan seeks, amongst other matters, to stem the loss of family sized accommodation and supports proposals for HMO’s that will not have a harmful impact on the character and amenity of a local area.

In 2025 an appeal1 against the refusal of a planning application for use of the appeal dwelling as a 10 person HMO ([name]) was dismissed. Prior to that in 2024 an appeal2 against an enforcement notice was dismissed for an unauthorised change of use of the property from a single family dwelling (Class C3) to a 9 [address] in [name] ([name] generis) and the unauthorised residential occupancy of the rear annexe for a maximum total occupancy of 16 people. I have given considerable weight in my considerations to the reasons given by the respective Inspectors for these dismissals.

The appellant has brought to my attention a number of approvals for either conversion, subdivision and/or extension of the properties in the street for the creation of flats at other properties in the street, going back over 10 years. Similar to the reasons given in the appeals identified above, I find that these are for development of single family residential units in Class C3 and significantly different to the change of use from a single family dwelling house (Class C3 to a HMO in either use Class C4 or [name] as proposed, and these would have been considered on their own individual merits. As such I find that these cannot be considered comparable exemplars for the appeal proposals and I have given these only limited weight in my considerations.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the workings of the HMO licencing regime, which is separate from the planning system, and includes provision for the remedy of noise, disturbance and other issues after they have been identified as actionable problems after such occurrences. As such I have given this only moderate weight in my considerations. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/W/24/3346625 2 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/C/23/3328018 Appeal Decisions 6000891, 6000382 Appeal A

The Council have put in place an Article 4 direction3 for the borough area that removes the permitted development right for a change of use from single family dwelling (Class C3 use) to a small 6 unit, 6 person HMO (Class C4) and requires that a planning application is required for such a change. This appeal relates to the refusal of such an application.

[name] have identified the local area of the appeal dwelling is a quiet residential area with a mix of single family houses and flats of various sizes. The use of the appeal dwelling would, therefore, be counter to the established housing mix of the area. This proposed use of the appeal dwelling as a small HMO (ClassC4) would accommodate 6 adults with independent lives and would, therefore result in an intensification of its use over and above that of an integrated single household of a similar number.

[name] acknowledge that the proposed number of occupants would be less than that proposed in the appeal dismissed in 2025, the intensification would, as I have identified, be greater than that of a single family household of a similar number of occupants. This intensification of use in small HMO’s is recognised through the separate use class of small HMO’s and the adoption of the Article 4 Direction by the Council requiring a planning permission for such a change from a single family dwelling (Class C3) to a small HMO (Class C4), which supports Policy HOU04 of the Local Plan.

For these reasons, and with regard to the similar reasons given in previously dismissed appeals, I find that the proposed change to a small HMO (Class C4) would contrast and be incompatible with the established character of the area. As such, the proposal would be incongruous in relation to the existing pattern of development and detrimental to its character as a quiet residential area, with its mix of single family houses and flats of various sizes.

[name] have identified above, the change from a single family dwelling house (Class C3) to a small HMO (Class C4) would result in an intensification of the use of the appeal dwelling. This intensification of use of the appeal dwelling as a small HMO (Class C4) would result in concomitant comings and goings to the appeal dwelling and activity. This proposed intensive use of the property would therefore risk noise pollution that would have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.

I note that similar concerns have been raised by neighbouring consultees, and they also detail similar effects of the current use of the appeal dwelling, without planning permission, as a large HMO ([name]). [name] acknowledge that the proposed number of occupants would be less than that proposed in the appeal dismissed in 2025, the intensification and concomitant coming and goings and risk of noise pollution would be greater than that of a single family household of a similar number of occupants. 3 Article 4(2), The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) Appeal Decisions 6000891, 6000382

For these reasons, and with regard to the similar reasons given in previously dismissed appeals, I find that the proposed change to a small HMO (Class C4) would generate a level of activity and noise that would be experienced by neighbouring residential occupiers as intrusive and disruptive and would result in disturbance that would be incompatible with quiet residential enjoyment.

For the reasons given above I find that the proposal would result in significant harm to the character of the area and living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. This would be contrary to Policies CDHO01 and HOU04 of the Local Plan and Policies D3 and D14 of the London Plan (2021), which amongst other matters seek to ensure that development optimises site capacity, including by change of use, responds to the existing character of a place and responds sensitively to distinctive local character and patterns of development and that mitigate adverse noise impacts and that do not have a harmful impact on the character and amenities of the surrounding area. Appeal B

The proposal in this case is for a change of use from a single family dwelling (Class C3) to a larger HMO for 7 people ([name]). This would result in a greater intensification of use than that for a 6 person small HMO (Class C4) as detailed above. As such I consider that the proposal would result in greater contrast and further incompatibility with the established character of the local area and as such would be more incongruous in relation to the existing pattern of development and detrimental to its character as a quiet residential area with a mix of single family houses and flats of various sizes.

[name] acknowledge that the proposed number of occupants would be less than that proposed in the appeal dismissed in 2025, the intensification would, as I have identified, be greater than that of a single family household of a similar number of occupants. This intensification of use in larger HMO’s ([name]) is recognised through them being in a separate use class to the appeal dwelling as a single family dwelling (Class C3).

For these reasons, and with regard to the similar reasons given in previously dismissed appeals, I find that the proposed change to a larger HMO ([name]) would contrast and be incompatible with the established character of the area. As such, the proposal would be incongruous in relation to the existing pattern of development and detrimental to its character as a quiet residential area with a mix of single family houses and flats of various sizes.

The change from a single family dwelling house (Class C3) to a [name] ([name]) would, as set out above, result in an intensification of the use of the appeal dwelling. This intensification of use of the appeal dwelling as a larger HMO ([name]) would result in concomitant comings and goings to the appeal dwelling and activity related to the lives of 7 independent adults in occupation when compared to a single family dwelling house with a similar number occupants. This proposed intensive use of the property would risk generating noise pollution that would have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. Appeal Decisions 6000891, 6000382

I note that similar concerns have been raised by neighbouring consultees, and they also detail similar effects of the current use of the appeal dwelling as a large HMO ([name]) without planning permission. [name] acknowledge that the proposed number of occupants would be less than that proposed in the appeal dismissed in 2025, the intensification and concomitant coming and goings and activity, and the resultant risk of noise pollution, would be greater than that of a single family household of a similar number of occupants.

For these reasons, and with regard to the similar reasons given in previously dismissed appeals, I find that the proposed change to a larger HMO ([name]) would generate a level of activity and noise that would be experienced by neighbouring residential occupiers as intrusive and disruptive and would result in disturbance that would be incompatible with quiet residential enjoyment.

For the reasons given above I find that the proposal would result in significant harm to the character of the area and living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. This would be contrary to Policies CDHO01 and HOU04 of the Local Plan and Policies D3 and D14 of the London Plan (2021), which amongst other matters seek to ensure that development optimises site capacity, including by change of use, responds to the existing character of a place and responds sensitively to distinctive local character and patterns of development and that mitigate adverse noise impacts and that do not have a harmful impact on the character and amenities of the surrounding area.

The appeals are dismissed.