Appeal 6003427

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council implemented an Article 4 Direction in 2016, thereby requiring planning permission for any change of use from buildings used as dwelling houses (use class C3) to buildings used as small-scale houses in multiple occupation (HMO) (use class C4) of up to 6 unrelated individuals.

The appeal property is currently in use as a 6-bedroom HMO and the planning application seeks to authorise this use. I have therefore dealt with this appeal on the basis that it is a retrospective development.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the availability of on street parking in the area; and • the effect of the development on the housing mix and character of the area; and • the effect of the development on the living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site has a complex planning and enforcement history indicating that the property has been most recently in use as an unauthorised HMO. In the absence of a lawful development certificate to establish the lawful use of the property uncertainty remains as to its previous, lawful, use. It is not within the scope of this decision to make a ruling on the lawful use, but it is a factor that has relevance to the planning merits of the proposal. The appellant invites me to consider that the building was previously used as 2 self-contained flats. From the information provided, there is evidence of an earlier planning permission for subdivision to 2 self-contained flats, but it is not definitively shown that it was implemented, nor if it was, the sizes of the respective flats. However, based on the available evidence it seems probable that the last lawful use was as 2 flats. I have approached my determination with this in mind.

The property is set back from the public highway behind a spacious front garden consisting of hard standing materials. The appellant sets out that this area can accommodate off street parking for 2 vehicles, accessed via a dropped kerb which is shared with 186 The Vale. A mature street tree is located to the front of the appeal site. Owing to these factors the Council consider the existing parking area and dropped kerb inadequate to accommodate 2 vehicles.

Policy TRC03 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) (BLP) sets out the Council’s approach to parking management. It establishes maximum residential parking standards according to the PTAL rating of the area and number of bedrooms in the respective unit. It further stipulates that the Council will require a [name] and Management Plan (PDMP) for all applications which include car parking and that the PDMP should be proportionate to the scale and type of development proposed, assess appropriate provision levels and any capacity for proposed on-street parking.

The parties dispute how the maximum car parking standards apply to HMO development, specifically whether the term ‘unit’ means the HMO as a whole or whether each bedroom counts as a unit. No explanatory text has been provided by the Council to augment the approach. Accordingly, as the proposed HMO would equate to a single planning unit, I am persuaded that it should be treated as a single unit with 6 bedrooms rather than 6 x 1 bed units for the purposes of the car parking standards. This would result in a ceiling of one off-street space being provided. Neither party suggests that the frontage space available at no.188 would be unable to accommodate 1 car parking space. Such provision would align with the maximum standard.

Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suppose that 6 unrelated individuals living at [address]. Little substantive evidence is before me to support the assertion that occupants would not own vehicles, notwithstanding their likely income.

The evidence provided, including representations from nearby residents, demonstrates that the surrounding roads experience parking pressures, where [name] (CPZs) are in operation. The appellant has not provided a PDMP that convincingly explains the likely car parking demand arising from occupants of the HMO, nor the local capacity for on-street parking. Part of the approach to parking management outlined in Policy TRC03 is to control parking permits within CPZs alongside limiting off-site parking. It states that parking permits may be issued for development in CPZs in line with the maximum permission level that would be permissible taking account of any on-site provision.

No mechanism is before me that would prevent future occupants of the HMO from obtaining parking permits in the CPZ. Hence, on the available evidence the proposal would be likely to increase demand and competition for on street parking which would be incompatible with the overall parking management approach. Furthermore, it would potentially increase highway safety risks of anti-social parking, greater circulation of vehicles with drivers searching for road spaces, as well as increase tension between residents. This would undermine the Council’s overall parking management objectives which seek to limit car parking.

Whilst cycle parking could be secured through appropriate condition, and I acknowledge that the site is reasonably well located to accessible bus services, this does not address the harm outlined in my reasoning above. I therefore conclude that the development has an adverse effect in relation to on street parking provision in the area. Accordingly, the development is contrary to Policy TRC03 of the BLP.

Policy HOU02 of the BLP supports development which provide a mix of dwelling types and sizes to help meet current and future housing needs. The Council expects all housing schemes to include a proportion of family sized homes, unless it can be robustly demonstrated that a variation to the preferred mix is justified on a site-specific basis. The policy elaborates that flexibility will be considered for specialist housing schemes, supported by Policy HOU04 of the BLP, which includes HMO development.

There is no dispute that [site address] is a semi-detached property located within a residential area that predominantly comprises of family sized dwelling houses. The development relates to a residential dwelling type which provides a form of accommodation for smaller households, which could therefore add to the housing mix within the area. In addition, despite the uncertainty regarding the lawful use of the property, the likelihood is that it provided two self-contained flats. Given the modest proportions of the property, it is unlikely that these comprised three-bedroom units suitable for family accommodation. Accordingly, it is not shown the proposal would directly lead to the loss of a family home. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to apply the flexibility for specialist housing schemes afforded by Policy HOU02 of the BLP.

Policy HOU04 (C) of the BLP sets out criteria to be considered in proposals for new HMOs, including, demonstration that the Council’s HMO licensing scheme are met, that the development meets an identified need and does not create a harmful concentration of such a use in a local area (where three or more of the ten nearest properties are HMOs), demonstrate that they will not have a harmful impact on the character and amenities of the surrounding area and are easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking.

It further sets out that where an existing HMO is of a reasonable standard, it will be protected unless it is demonstrated that there is no local need for such accommodation. There is no dispute that the appeal property is currently in an unauthorised use as an HMO. As such, the latter element of the policy is not applicable.

With regard to policy criteria (C) (a) of Policy HOU04 of the BLP, evidence has been provided that the existing unauthorised planning use of the property as an HMO has been licensed since 2016, therefore complying with any relevant standard for HMOs with the Council’s licensing team. With regard to need, as set out in criteria Policy HOU04 (C) (b) of the BLP, whilst there is a requirement for family sized accommodation in all housing schemes as set out in Policy HOU02 of the BLP, I also note that there is a requirement for a mix of dwelling types and sizes to help meet current and future housing needs. The appellant has provided evidence from The London Borough of Barnet Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update (2018), which is used to inform specific aspects of housing need, such as housing mix, tenure requirements or specialist housing need. The data provided demonstrates that there is a growth in multi-adult households and therefore a demonstrable need for HMOs. More recent evidence provided by the appellant includes the Greater London Authority London Housing Strategy (2024) which sets out that there has been an 5% increase in HMO licenses between 2021 and 2024.

From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that there is a growing need for accommodation providing for smaller households, albeit that this needs to be balanced alongside the other policy requirements. The Council has stated that evidence of proximity to nearby institutions has not been demonstrated. However, this is not a development for purpose-built student accommodation and is not required through the parameters of the policy HOU04 (C) of the BLP relating to HMO development. Further, the Council does not find a harmful concentration of HMOs in the local area following a search of the [name] register and as such the development is in accordance with the requirements of Policy HOU04 (C) (b) of the BLP.

Turning to criteria (c) of Policy HOU04 (C) of the BLP, I observed at my site visit that the property did not obviously differ in external appearance to those in the surrounding residential area. Upon closer inspection, there were multiple doorbells within the recessed entrance area, and a greater number of refuse receptacles were present within the front garden. Beyond the above, there was no noticeable difference or harmful effect evident to the character or appearance of the property or the wider locality as a result of the existing use at the property, which assimilates within its residential context.

Furthermore, I do not have evidence that the occupancy is of a transient or short-term nature, or that this differs substantially from other rental properties within the area. Length of tenancy is not a requirement within the Council’s policy for new HMO development. Accordingly, I do not find conflict with Policy HOU04 (C)(c) of the BLP which requires development to demonstrate that it will not have a harmful impact on the character or amenities of the surrounding area. For similar reasons, I do not find conflict with Policy CDH01 of the BLP which requires development to respond sensitively to the distinctive local character of the existing context.

With regard to Policy HOU04 (C) (d) of the BLP, the Council states that the development is within an area with a PTAL rating of 2. This denotes relatively poor access to public transport, and I have not seen evidence that this rating is incorrect. Criteria (d) of the policy requires that new HMO development is easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking. Hence, it is not solely judged on public transport accessibility, but walking and cycling convenience too.

The property is located within a reasonable walking distance of [address], with regular [name] bus services serving [name]. The appellant states that it lies about 830m from Cricklewood town centre. Additionally, there is ample space in the external area of the property to enable secure, covered cycle storage to be accommodated. These factors mean that occupants have a genuine choice as to mode of transportation with a range of sustainable transport options.

Accordingly, I therefore conclude that the use of the property as a 6-bedroom HMO would not result in an adverse effect on the mix of housing in the area, that there is a demonstrated need for the development which would not result in in adverse effect on the provision of family sized accommodation or the character of the area. I therefore find no conflict with Policies HOU02, HOU04 or CDH01 of the BLP.

The HMO use is residential in nature. In addition, the scale and intensity of use, even with 6 unrelated individuals, is relatively modest and there is little evidence to show that such usage is inherently problematic. It is not shown that the occupancy and layout is so significant as to have a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of local residents due to noise and disturbance or the frequency of comings and goings at the property. Any additional noise and disturbance as a result of the HMO, along with the potential for anti-social behaviour, would not necessarily be greater than might occur if the property were occupied by a single family of up to 6 individuals.

There is no evidence before me indicating statutory nuisance complaints relating to the existing unauthorised HMO use at the appeal site. Neither is there commentary from the Council’s environmental health officer regarding the need to install sound insulation to mitigate against noise transmission with the adjoining semi-detached neighbour.

The Council have referred to the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (RDGSPD) (2016) and the [name] and Construction (SDCSPD) (2016) in reason for refusal 2 of the decision notice. Whilst the above guidance does not have the status of policy, the documents are material considerations. I note that RDGSPD requires that the impact on the amenity of future residents and neighbouring properties should be minimised; considerations which have been accounted for in my reasoning. With regard to RDGSPD, the Council are not explicit as to where the development conflicts with this guidance, and I find minimal reference to HMO development within the document.

For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on the living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance. I find no conflict with Policy CDH01 of the BLP which, amongst other matters, requires new development to provide safe and secure environments along with a good standard of amenity and to mitigate adverse noise impacts on the surrounding environment. I further find that the development is in accordance with Policy HOU04 of the BLP which requires proposals for HMOs to demonstrate that they will not have a harmful impact on the amenities of surrounding areas. Additionally, I find no conflict with Policy ECC02 of the BLP which, amongst other requirements, requests that development avoids generation of unacceptable noise levels close to noise sensitive uses.

Further, the development complies with Policy D3 of the LP in so far as it seeks development to achieve safe, secure and inclusive environments and help prevent or mitigate the impacts of noise. Further, I find no conflict with Policy D14 of the LP which requires development to avoid significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life.

The Council’s evidence includes appeal decisions in relation to 187 The Vale1 and 155 The Vale2 where proposals for HMOs were dismissed. Unlike the case before me, fewer details were provided for the appeal at No 187 in relation to the need for an HMO in the locality. Further, the appeal decision at No 155 was issued in 2019 and therefore predates the current BLP and references to the need for student accommodation are not relevant to the appeal before me. As such, the appeals carry little weight and do not alter my overall conclusions.

I am satisfied that the development would have an acceptable effect on the housing mix and character of the area, in addition to the living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above in relation to the first main issue, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.