Appeal 6000941

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 change of use of the property has been implemented and therefore I am considering this appeal retrospectively.

The main issues of this appeal are:  The effects of the development on the character of the area;  Whether the appeal site is in a suitable location for a HMO with particular reference to accessibility;  The effects of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and  The effects of the development on parking conditions.

The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached building with a single storey rear extension and a rear box dormer roof extension. It is located on [address], a predominantly residential street of similar dwellings. The front of the property is laid mainly to hard standing and there is a dropped kerb to allow access over the footway and for parking.

The development is a change of use from a single family residential dwelling to a six-bedroom HMO for seven occupants. No external changes are proposed. From the evidence before me and my observations on site, the appeal property is located within a predominantly residential area, mostly comprising moderately sized semi-detached, two-storey dwellings, the majority of which appear to be in use as single family homes.

The Council have concerns that the development could accommodate up to ten persons, and I accept that this could be limited to seven by condition as suggested by the appellant. However, a family unit predominantly operates as one household. In contrast, each occupier of a HMO is likely to have different lifestyle patterns and as a result there would be increased comings and goings to and from the site at different times. There would also be a greater number of visitors, deliveries, and rubbish generation. In my view, the increased level of activity would be noticeably different and harmful to the established character of family housing at [address].

I therefore find that the development would have a harmful effect on the character of the area. Accordingly, the development would conflict with the Barnet Local Plan (2025) (the Local Plan) Policy HOU04, insofar as it seeks development which does not harm the character of the surrounding area.

The property is in an area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 2, which means accessibility is poor. The supporting text of policy HOU04 identifies PTAL 3-6 as good accessibility. It is approximately a seven to eight minute walk to a bus stop in either direction and the evidence is that [name] and [name] underground stations are at least a [address] away. I attended my site visit by public transport and whilst there were several options to travel to the site, they all resulted in a lengthy walk. Therefore, I do not consider the PTAL rating to understate the accessibility of the site and I conclude that the property is not so readily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking as to comply with this strand of policy HOU04.

I therefore find that the appeal site is not in a suitable location for a HMO with particular reference to accessibility. Accordingly, the development conflicts with Policies CDH01 and HOU04 of the Local Plan and the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2016), insofar as they relate to this main issue. These seek, amongst other things, HMO’s that are easily accessible by public transport, cycling, and walking.

I have no reason to doubt that the appeal property would be subject to appropriate management, and I note that a detailed HMO Management Plan has been submitted. The level of activity associated with the proposed use would be appreciably greater than that typically arising from the surrounding predominantly single‐family dwellings.

The occupation of the property as a HMO would be likely to give rise to increased noise and disturbance arising from a range of activities, including occupants congregating outside the property, the opening and closing of vehicle doors, and more frequent comings and goings throughout the day and evening. The cumulative effect of these additional movements would be likely to result in a discernible increase in noise and general disturbance, to the detriment of the living conditions of neighbouring residents. Moreover, management of the HMO through the submitted [name] would not control the more general noise and disturbance from the increased level of activity from unrelated occupants.

I note that the appeal property has been operating as an HMO since October 2022. The appellant maintains that a lack of complaints demonstrates that the HMO would be capable of running in a manner compatible with the surrounding residential area. However, objections have been received from both adjoining occupiers, who raise concerns relating to noise, disturbance and incidents of anti‐social behaviour arising from the use. This lends further weight to the conclusion that the development would result in harm to living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Whilst the number of occupiers could be limited by condition, the number leading separate lives would still be significant. Therefore, following the reasoning above, I conclude that I cannot overcome this matter using such a condition.

Accordingly, the development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance. Therefore, the development conflicts with policies D3 and D14 of the London Plan 2021, policies CDH01 and HOU04 of the Local Plan, the Residential Design Guidance SPD and the [name] and [name] in so far as they relate to this main issue. These seek, amongst other things, high quality development that protects the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The surrounding streets have limited on street parking due to most properties having off road parking, meaning that on street parking is interrupted by multiple dropped kerbs limiting parking space. However, at the time of my visit, which I appreciate was a snapshot in time, there were numerous vehicles parked on the street, including vehicles parked blocking dropped kerbs, and with no open spaces. Nonetheless, the area is not a [name].

Given my observations I accept the veracity of the neighbouring occupier objection of the general parking pressure in the area. The property’s front garden has been laid to hardstanding, and it does benefit from a dropped kerb allowing access over the footway. There were no cars present on the forecourt at the time of my visit, but the highways officer was consulted and concluded that the two parking spaces accessed by the existing crossover would be acceptable.

The Council state that the development requires 4.5 parking spaces. This figure is based on 0.75 spaces per 1-2 bed unit as per table 20 of the Local Plan, which is consistent with policy T6.1, table 10.3 of the London Plan 2021. The standards are maximum and they are not specific to HMOs.

I note that the appellant disputes this methodology, stating that the development is a shared dwelling and not six independent households. However, the HMO would have six bedrooms and could have up to seven occupiers leading independent lives. There is no evidence before me to demonstrate typically low car ownership amongst HMO inhabitants. In its absence the Council’s parking requirements seem reasonable as all the occupiers could have cars, especially in the context of the site’s location in PTAL 2 and its subsequent poor access to public transport connections.

There would be 2 spaces available at the appeal property, leaving a shortfall of 2.5 spaces. This would result in additional on-street parking demand. The highway officer’s response recommended that justification for the under-provision of off street car parking, in the form of a survey conducted in line with the ‘[name],’ should be provided to ascertain whether there is sufficient availability of on-street parking to accommodate the potential overspill. However, no survey has been provided. In its absence, I agree with the Council that the HMO use is likely to increase parking pressures in the area, potentially to the detriment of users and to the free flow of traffic, contrary to the provisions of the development plan.

It would not be appropriate to provide a parking survey by condition, as it could conclude that the parking demand could not be met. Furthermore, the provision of cycle storage would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm in terms of the shortfall of parking at the site.

I therefore find that the development would have a harmful effect on parking conditions. Accordingly, the development would conflict with policies T4, T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021), and policy TRC03 of the Local Plan, insofar as they require that development does not increase road danger and that parking should be limited in accordance with the Local Plan.

The appellant contends that the re‐use of existing housing stock, rather than the provision of new‐build housing, weighs in favour of the development. [name] acknowledge that the scheme would use existing housing stock, I have found that the use would nonetheless give rise to harm, which significantly reduces the weight that can be attributed to this consideration. Although the development would be of sufficient size and would comply with the relevant internal space standards, this would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm identified. Moreover, while provision is made for refuse and recycling storage and cycle parking, these are neutral considerations and do not alter my overall conclusion that the harmful impacts of the development would remain.

The appellant draws to my attention the proximity of the property to [name] and Finchley town centre, which are said to create demand for affordable shared accommodation in the area. One estate agent letter also refers to the nearby hospital, and the Council conclude that this is sufficient evidence of a need for a HMO. I acknowledge that there is a demand for this type of housing which would provide lower-cost, flexible accommodation, particularly suited to key workers, single adults and those seeking housing close to employment opportunities. Nonetheless, this is compliance with one element of HOU04 and despite its positive contribution, would not outweigh the harms identified.

I acknowledge that the property does have a valid HMO license, however compliance in this regard is a neutral effect and would not overcome the harm I have identified.

The development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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