Appeal 6002421

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant indicates that the original description of development has changed. Therefore, the above description reflects the amended description shown on the appeal form.

The Council’s second reason for refusal is that the proposal does not include a formal undertaking to provide a financial contribution to mitigate the effects of on-street parking in the vicinity of the appeal site. In response, the appellant submitted a [name] under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide the requisite contribution. This matter is addressed as a main issue in this appeal to consider whether the submitted Undertaking adequately addresses the reason for refusal.

I note that there is a borough-wide Article [address], which requires permission for change of use of dwellings to small-scale Houses in [name] (HMO), as in this case.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the provision of family-sized housing within the borough and on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and whether adequate provision would be secured for the mitigation of the effects of the proposal on on-street parking.

The appeal property is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling on the eastern side of [address]. The road includes similar properties and the surrounding area is predominantly residential in character.

The Council refers to a recent unsuccessful application for a similar form of development at the appeal property1. [name] note this earlier proposal and decision, this appeal involves a separate proposal which I have considered on its own merits.

Policy HOU04 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) includes criteria relating to proposals for new HMOs. The Council’s principal concerns in this regard are that in the absence of any demonstrable need for an HMO, the proposal results in the loss of a family-sized dwelling for which there is known demand; and that the proposed use would be incongruous to the established character of the area. In addition, the location has a poor public transport accessibility rating.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that in terms of establishing housing needs, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies2. In this case, while reference is made to the demand for family-sized dwellings, I am not aware that any evidence has been provided to support this contention, both in its own right and relative to any need for HMO accommodation.

Policy HOU04 seeks to avoid a concentration of HMO uses within an area, to prevent harm to local character and amenity; the Article 4 Direction is intended to support this aim. I acknowledge in this regard the Council’s concern that character relates to function and local identity, rather than just physical appearance. However, I am not aware that there are other HMOs within the vicinity of the appeal property and, therefore, the proposal would not lead to a concentration of such uses. Moreover, with three occupants the property would have an equivalent or lower level of occupancy than could be the case with a single dwelling and no changes are proposed to the external appearance of the property.

Given the occupancy level, the vehicle movements associated with its proposed use are likely to be similar to or fewer than those associated with its use as a family dwelling. As such, the transport accessibility rating of the location should not weigh against the proposal.

Taking the evidence as a whole, there is no reasonable basis to find that the proposed use as a small, limited occupancy HMO would result in material harm to the provision of family-sized housing or to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and I conclude as such. Consequently, there is no conflict with Policy HOU04 of the Barnet Local Plan, as described, or with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), which requires development to respond to the quality and character of places. 1 Ref 25/2032/RCU. 2 Paragraph 63. 2

[address] includes on-street parking controls in the form of a residents permit scheme governed by a Traffic Management Order (TMO). The amount of off-street parking required for the proposal is 2.25 spaces. As the appeal property provides one parking space, the Council requires a contribution to amend the TMO to exempt occupiers of the appeal property from eligibility for applying for parking permits.

I accept that in the circumstances where demand for on-street parking needs to be managed, the measure proposed is necessary, related directly to the development and fairly related in scale and kind. Consequently, it would accord with the provisions of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the tests for planning obligations set out in the Framework. However, I have some concerns about the submitted document itself, particularly whether the undertaking by the appellant amounts to an enforceable obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Clause 2.1 of the document states that the appellant will not allow any future occupier of the development to obtain a resident parking permit within the controlled parking zone. As such, this is a personal undertaking by the appellant rather than a binding obligation which runs with the land and use of the property, in accordance with the statutory requirements for a properly made planning obligation. I have had regard to the parties’ views on this matter, but the comments made do not directly address this concern, which goes to the heart of the intended purpose of the Undertaking that has been provided.

I note also that while the Undertaking is signed, it is not witnessed as it should be. While this could be addressed, it does not overcome the more fundamental shortcoming in the document. I give little weight to the appellant’s contention that a Grampian condition would be appropriate, as this could only be used in the circumstances of this case to require an obligation or other agreement to be entered into, and a [name] has already been provided.

Therefore, for these reasons, I must conclude that the proposal fails to secure adequate provision for the mitigation of its effects on on-street parking. Consequently, it is contrary in this regard to Policy TRC03 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036, concerning parking management; and to Policies T4 and T6.1 of the London Plan, which respectively concern assessing and mitigating transport impacts, and residential parking.

For the reasons given in respect of the second main issue it is concluded that the appeal should not succeed.