Appeal 6002731

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring flats, with specific regard to noise and disturbance; and, • whether the proposal accords with the local development plan policy in relation to Houses in [name] (HMOs).

The appeal site, [site address] , is located on the third floor of [site address] , a purpose-built block of flats. The existing flat is a single-family unit with 5 bedrooms. The proposal would change the single dwelling into a 5 bed, 6 person HMO.

The block of flats is a multi-occupancy residential environment, with enclosed shared access and circulation spaces. From the evidence before me, [site address] is predominantly occupied by single-family households. The front doors of individual flats on each floor open out onto a shared stairwell. Despite [site address] being located close to the busy [site address] , at my site visit, albeit a snap-shot in time, the shared stairwell and landing from which [site address] is accessed was relatively quiet with little background noise audible. As such, any increase in activity in this area would be particularly noticeable to the occupiers of the neighbouring flats.

While [site address] could be occupied by a large family of 6 or more, families tend to have similar patterns of travel and activities and often have shared deliveries and visitors. The proposal would result in [site address] being occupied as an HMO by 5 different households.

In contrast to single-family households, unrelated occupiers who typically occupy HMOs tend to be more transient, leading separate daily lives and are unlikely to share common connections or have similar work or study patterns. As such, an HMO could generate more comings and goings at different times of the day and night. Consequently, there would be an increase in noise and disturbance.

Given the relatively quiet enclosed stairwell that [site address] opens onto, and the close proximity of flats which also open directly onto the stairwell, any increased level of noise and disturbance within the stairwell and landing area outside [site address] would be highly noticeable to residents of nearby flats. In the context of this site, and the proposed number of individual occupiers in [site address] , I find the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring flats would be materially harmed as a result of increased noise and disturbance within the enclosed shared stairwell and landing.

It has been identified that an [name] has been granted to another flat within [site address] , although the Council confirm it does not benefit from planning permission and it is not clear from the information before me whether it is in use as an HMO. As such, the suggestion that the flat operates without adverse impacts has little bearing on my decision.

I acknowledge that a condition could be imposed to secure a formal HMO Management Plan and to limit the number of occupants. However, I am not convinced that this would be easily enforceable within a block of flats sharing stairwells, or would mitigate the harmful impact of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Accordingly, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers with specific regard to noise and disturbance, contrary to Policies CDH01 and HOU04 of Barnet’s Local Plan (2025) (Local Plan) and Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021), which collectively seek to ensure that development delivers appropriate amenity, including noise impacts for surrounding occupants.

Given the conflict with the Local Plan, the proposal would also be contrary to the guidance set out within the Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016) and the Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and Construction (2016), which together provide guidance relating to the safeguarding of neighbouring living conditions with particular regard to noise, and supplements policies in the adopted Local Plan.

Policy HOU04 of the Local Plan deals with proposals for new HMOs. [name] of this policy sets out the criteria that proposals for HMOs should meet. These include that the Council’s licensing requirements would be met, there should not be a harmful concentration of HMOs in the local area, that they would meet an identified need, that they would not have a harmful impact on the character and amenities of the surrounding area, and that they would be easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking.

There is no dispute between the parties that the Council’s licensing requirements would not be met or that there would be a harmful concentration of HMOs in the area. Indeed, evidence indicates that most of the flats within [site address] are single-family units despite fronting the busy [site address] , which may have higher ambient noise levels than other residential areas of the Borough.

In terms of need, to support their case, the appellant has provided a letter from a local estate agent, SLettings, which sets out their opinion on the local housing market. Although it is identified that there are individuals looking for HMOs within the area, I have not been provided with substantive evidence that this demand is not currently being met elsewhere. Even if there is a demand for HMO accommodation, evidence submitted with the appeal suggests there is also a need for family housing in the area, in part, evidence by the Council’s introduction of an Article 4 Direction.

In relation to character and amenity, based on the evidence before me, and observations during my site visit, while [site address] fronts the busy [site address] and is a multi-occupancy building, its internal character is formed by the intimate and enclosed relationship of the individual units with one another. [site address] contributes positively to this character, as it reflects the prevailing character of single-family households.

Although the proposal would not result in any physical alterations, as I have set out in the first main issue above, the intimate relationship between the units and shared spaces in the building would be materially harmed by the increased activity resulting from the introduction of the proposed HMO. As such, the character of this shared space and thus the residential block as a whole would be harmed.

In terms of accessibility, despite the bus stop to the front of the block, the site has a low Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 2. As well as the distance to public transport access points, PTALs reflect the reliability of services, number of services and level of service at access points, as described in the glossary of Barnet’s Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016).

Although Policy HOU04 of the Local Plan does not prescribe a minimum PTAL rating, it requires HMOs to be easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking. A low PTAL rating suggests that the transport choices for journeys are limited. Given that the HMO would be occupied by individuals from different households who have different needs for accessibility compared to a family, there would be likely to be a greater requirement for an HMO to be located near to sustainable transport and local services.

Given that the site is located a considerable distance from Temple Fortune Town Centre, [address] Town Centre and other key destinations, and it has a low PTAL rating, it is not considered to be a sustainable location for an HMO.

Bringing the above together, I conclude the proposal would not meet all the criteria set out within [name] of Policy HOU04.

While Policy HOU03 of the Local Plan concerning family homes has not been referenced in the decision notice, the first reason for refusal refers to the loss of a family-sized home for which there is known demand. I note the Council’s delegated report and Statement both refer to this Policy and the loss of a family home is addressed in the appellant’s submission.

Although the appellant acknowledges [site address] is capable of being used as a family home, it is argued that it is unsuitable as a long-term family home. However, the appellant’s claim that families are moving out of [site address] due to its proximity to a busy road, traffic noise and safety concerns has not been substantiated by any robust evidence. [name] recognise the flats do not have access to private outdoor amenity space, Brent Park, a designated open space, is to the rear of the appeal site which can be accessed quickly on a pedestrian footpath. Young children using the park would be doing so under supervision, therefore the unfenced pond would have limited bearing on the safety of families using the designated open space. Given that the park is in proximity to [site address] , the absence of private amenity space does not mean the unit is inherently unsuitable for a family. It is a matter of fact that the proposal would result in the loss of a family home.

I acknowledge that some households could be accustomed to living in an urban environment with high ambient noise levels and no private outdoor space, which can be balanced against the benefits of affordability. However, these factors are equally as important to providing a good standard of accommodation for adults, including those living in HMOs.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude on this main issue that the proposal would result in the loss of a family-sized home and would conflict with local development plan policy relating to HMOs. This is because it has not been robustly demonstrated that it would meet an identified need that overrides the need for family-sized homes, it would not be easily accessible to local services and facilities by public transport, cycling and walking, and it would have a harmful impact on the character of the residential block of flats within which it is located It would therefore be contrary to Policies CDH01 and HOU04 of the Local Plan and Policy D3 of The London Plan, which collectively seek to ensure that new HMOs are easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking, meet an identified need, and that they respond sensitively to the distinctive local character .

Given the conflict with the Local Plan, the proposal would also be contrary to the guidance set out within the Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance (2016) and the Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and Construction (2016), which together provide guidance that supplements policies in the adopted Local Plan.

The appellant has provided examples of other HMOs in the area which have received planning permission. An application for the change of use from a single-family dwelling to an HMO at [address] (ref 23/0043/FUL) was approved by the Council in July 2023. Although the site is also located on the [site address] , it differs from the appeal site in that despite being further from a designated open space, its PTAL rating is higher than that at the appeal site. The Councils Officer’s report in that case also notes the character of the area is mixed. Importantly, it is not a flatted development incorporating shared areas. Given that the site-specific circumstances of [address] materially differ from that of the appeal site, it follows that the evidence required to support each proposal would be different, since each proposal is determined on its own merits. As such, this example carries limited weight in favour of the appeal before me.

The examples of 14-15 [name] (Ref 25/3940/FUL) and 40 [name] (Ref 24/2930/OUT) are both within a PTAL 2 area. However, they are not comparable to the appeal proposal given their town centre location. An application in a PTAL 1b area at [address] (Ref 22/3415/RCU) was granted planning permission. However, other considerations, including its proximity to educational and retail uses, were taken into consideration. As such, this example differs from the appeal site. Finally, planning permission at Flat 8A [name] (Ref 21/5831/FUL) was granted for an HMO. However, this decision was made prior to the adoption of the current local plan.

The appellant contends that the change of use from a single dwelling to an HMO is reversible. [name] acknowledge that this would be possible given the lack of alterations, it would not outweigh the harm I have found to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers as a result of increased noise and disturbance,, character of the residential block, accessibility, or the need for HMOs at the expense of the need for family-sized homes. As such, the reversibility of the proposal bears little weight on my decision.

The proposal would make efficient use of the land through the provision of a specific type of housing. In this respect, it would help to boost the supply of housing in the area. However, the provision of one HMO would be a limited increase, and therefore attracts only limited weight in favour of the appeal.

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 it.