Appeal 6000539

The appeal is dismissed.

The Application Form indicates that the change of use has already started. In this respect, the appeal seeks retrospective change of use. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the plans submitted, which shows the development of a six bedroom HMO.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the development on the housing mix and character of the area, and whether the location of the site is suitable having regard to its accessibility by public transport; • the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties having regard to noise, disturbance and general activity; and • whether the first floor right rear bedroom provides adequate living conditions for the occupiers of the development with regard to internal floor space.

Criterion b) of Policy HOU04 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (adopted March

(the BLP) requires proposals for HMOs to demonstrate that they meet an identified need and do not create a harmful concentration of such a use in the local area. The latter part of the criterion relating to HMO concentration is not disputed by the main parties, and I have no basis to find otherwise.

Given the significant identified need for family-sized housing in the area, Policies HOU02 and HOU03 of the BLP seek to achieve a balanced housing mix, including protecting family-sized housing. Therefore, prioritising family-sized housing is not considered discriminatory to the development.

The development results in the loss of a family-sized dwelling which is identified as a priority housing need in Barnet. As such, it would undermine the Council’s aim to protect the stock of family-sized dwellings and meet the demand for family-sized accommodation in the area.

While there may be demand for single-person accommodation in the area, insufficient substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the development would meet an identified need for such accommodation, as required by criterion b) of Policy HOU04 of the BLP.

The appellant’s years of experience and expertise in relation to HMOs, while relevant to their ability to manage such properties, does not in itself demonstrate a planning need for the proposed development. Similarly, the circumstances of the current occupiers are private matters and do not establish a wider need for additional HMO accommodation. For development to be justified, there must be demonstrable evidence of need. Individual circumstances and professional background do not constitute sufficient evidence to justify need for the development.

Criterion c) of Policy HOU04 requires proposals for HMOs to demonstrate that they will not have a harmful impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

The appeal relates to a two storey semi-detached dwelling located within a predominantly residential area. No external changes to the property are proposed. [address] is mainly characterised by semi-detached dwellings used as single family dwelling houses.

I do not consider the development’s overall intensity of use is significantly greater than that of a large family household for the following reasons. Different generations in a household could generate separate activities, especially if the children in the family are adults. This could include separate activities relating to work and leisure, including visitors. Given the scale of the development and the size of the existing house, the development does not materially alter the established character of the area.

Criterion d) of Policy HOU04 requires proposals for HMOs to be easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking.

While the appeals site’s Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) is 2, it is situated close to bus stops in [address], which are served by a regular bus service. The site is also approximately 800 metres walking distance from Edgeware Town Centre, which contains a good range of services and facilities including Edgeware underground station. Therefore, in my consideration, the site is easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking.

However, overall, while the development complies with criteria c) and d) of Policy HOU04, it fails in relation to criterion b) due to insufficient evidence submitted to demonstrate that the development meets an identified need.

For the reasons given, while the development does not harm the character of the area and is suitably located having regard to its accessibility by public transport, it harms the housing mix of the area through the loss of a family-sized dwelling. Consequently, while the development complies with Policies D3 and D14 of the London Plan (adopted March 2021) (the LP), Policy CDH01 of the BLP and criteria c) and d) of Policy HOU04 of the BLP, it conflicts with criterion b) of Policy HOU04.

As a five bedroom house, the appeal property could accommodate a family of five or more people. This would generate levels of noise and disturbance associated with activity undertaken by different people in the household, especially if the household includes adult children. This could include separate comings and goings in relation to work, leisure activities, visitors and deliveries.

Given the scale of the development and the size of the existing house, the associated activity is not considered significantly greater than if it were used as a large family home.

Furthermore, no compelling or verifiable evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the activities associated with the development results in harmful levels of noise or disturbance. In the absence of objective evidence such as noise monitoring reports, complaints records, or third-party assessments, the claim of adverse impact remains unsubstantiated.

For the reasons given, I cannot find that the development causes harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties through noise, disturbance or general activity. As such, the development complies with D3 and D14 of the LP, CDH01 of the BLP and criterion c) of Policy HOU04 of the BLP insofar as they require development to prevent or mitigate the impacts of noise and deliver appropriate amenity.

Criterion a) of Policy HOU04 of the BLP requires proposals for new HMOs to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the Council’s HMO Licensing Schemes and comply with any relevant standards for Houses in [name].

The first-floor rear right bedroom is 5.39 sq. m., which is significantly below the relevant standard set out in the Council’s Standards for Houses in Multiple Occupation London Borough of Barnet (adopted 2022). As a result, the aforementioned bedroom would provide insufficient internal floorspace, reducing the quality of the accommodation and adversely affecting occupant living

That the communal areas are in excess of the Council’s HMO licensing scheme requirements does not overcome the substandard size of the first floor rear right bedroom.

The appellant suggests that planning permission could have been granted by the Council excluding this bedroom, or a revised application for a five bedroom HMO may be made. However, the appeal before me is for a six bedroom HMO and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

For the reasons given, the first floor right rear bedroom does not provide adequate living conditions for the occupiers of the development with regard to internal floor space. Accordingly, there is conflict with criterion a) of Policy HOU04 of the BLP.

The development is also contrary to the Council’s Standards for Houses in Multiple Occupation London Borough of Barnet (adopted 2022).

The Council has referred to conflict with Policy CDH01 of the BLP. However, this policy relates to high quality design so is not determinative on this main issue.

The appellant has indicated that the current occupants of the property would need to be re-housed if the appeal were dismissed. However, as set out in Planning Practice Guidance, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. In this instance, the personal circumstances of the occupiers do not override the requirement to comply with the development plan. Accordingly, that matter does not outweigh the harm I have identified.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.