Appeal 6004442

The appeal is dismissed.

A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan-making and national decision-making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. No final decisions upon the consultation have yet been announced. Therefore, and for this reason, I afford the Consultation Draft Framework limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issues, I have afforded full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (as amended) (the Framework) and the adopted development plan for the area. In this case, the Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusion below regarding the appeal.

The appellant describes the proposed development as ‘C3-C4 HMO for up to 5 people’. I have used the fuller description of the local planning authority (LPA) in the banner heading.

On 26 May 2016, the Council implemented an Article 4 Direction across the borough requiring planning permission for any change of use from buildings used as dwellings (Use Class C3) to buildings used as small-scale houses in multiple occupation (Use Class C4).

The appellant has referred to other appeal decisions in the London area, quoting their appeal reference numbers. A request was made to the appellant for copies of the associated decision letters. However, the reference numbers relate to other types of development with no obvious relevance to the current appeal and are also Appeal Ref: 6004442 located mostly in other parts of the country. In any event, I have determined this appeal upon its individual planning merits.

The main issues are (i) whether the site is suitable for use as an HMO, having regard to development plan policies, and (ii) the effect of the proposed development upon the character of the area.

[site address] is a semi-detached, two-storey family dwelling located in an area of similar family houses.

The LPA, in its decision notice, considers that its use as an HMO ’undermines the strategic approach which otherwise prioritises meeting needs for family housing as part of residential conversions and redevelopment of large houses and further reduces the mix, inclusivity and sustainability of the neighbourhood’.

The LPA quotes various development plan policies in support of this, including policies HOU02, HOU03, and HOU04 of the London Borough of Barnet Local plan (2025) (LP); the Residential Development Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (RSPD); and the [name] and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (CSPD). It refers to table 7 in the [name] chapter which states that the greatest need is for 3-bedroom family market dwellings, though at a figure of 40% of the housing need, it is not an overwhelmingly dominant need over all others. Policy HOU02 ([name]) states that, in order to deliver mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods, the Council will support proposals which provide a mix of dwelling types and sizes to help meet current and future housing needs.

While such policies demonstrate a concern to provide for, amongst other forms of accommodation, family homes, policy HOU04 of the LP is supportive of other forms of accommodation, including houses in multiple occupation (HMO), subject to the latter meeting four specified criteria.

The first of these is that it can be demonstrated that the requirements of the Council’s HMO Licensing Scheme and any relevant standards for Houses in [name] can be met. The LPA confirms that this is the case.

The second requirement is that it can be demonstrated that there is an identified need for an HMO and that there is no harmful concentration of such a use in the local area, with such a concentration being defined as where there are three or more HMOs within the ten nearest properties. The LPA confirms that there is no such concentration.

However, the requirement of policy HOU04 is that a need for the HMO needs to be demonstrated. The appellant has referred to a high level of demand consequent to the advertising of the HMO, though such level of demand is not related to a specific need such as proximity to a hospital or for student accommodation. On that basis, I do not find that a specific need for the HMO has been demonstrated. Even if I were Appeal Ref: 6004442 to consider otherwise, this would not overcome my conclusions with regard to the other requirements of LP policy HOU04.

The third criterion requires that the proposal demonstrates that there will be no harmful impact upon the character of the surrounding area, an issue which I consider separately.

The fourth requirement is that the proposed HMO shall be easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking. The LPA, in its decision notice, states that the property has a low Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating.

There are disagreements between the parties as to distances and walking times to the nearest railway stations and shops. The LPA, using Google map directions, considers that Wilsden Green station is 1.5 miles away and would take [address] there, whereas the appellant considers that the time taken would be 14 minutes. The LPA considers that [name] railway station, being 1.7 kilometres away, would involve a [address], whereas the appellant considers that it would take only 10 minutes. The appellant considers that Cricklewood railway station is a [address] away.

The LPA has referred to a recent, dismissed appeal case in the Borough relating to an HMO located approximately a 15-minute walk to the nearest railway station and town centre and where the Inspector refers to its low PTAL rating of two, indicating a low level of accessibility1. It has also referred to a second such appeal dismissal relating to an HMO, with one reason being its PTAL rating of two2.

Such walking distances give credibility to a similarly low PTAL score for the appeal site, even if the walking times quoted by the appellant are used. I have no contrary evidence before me relating to access to other forms of public transport or to cycling.

On the basis of the above, I consider that the appeal property would not meet the requirement of LP policy HOU04 for the proposed HMO to be easily accessible by public transport, or by cycling or walking.

On this main issue, the Council cite conflict with LP policies HOU2 and HOU3 as well as the RSPD and the CSPD. However, policy HOU3 refers to the conversion of larger houses, defined by having a floor area of 135m2, whereas the appeal proposal has a lesser floor area. Policy HOU02 is concerned with the housing mix and not specifically with HMOs, while the RSPD and the CSPD are generally concerned with design quality and environmental considerations, as opposed to the location of HMOs. However, these matters do not overcome the conflict with the aforementioned policy.

One of the four criteria contained in LP policy HOU04 necessary to support a proposal for an HMO is that it must be demonstrated that it would not have a harmful impact upon the character and amenities of the surrounding area. 1 APP/N5090/W/23/3335750 2 6000300 Appeal Ref: 6004442

The proposal contains no HMO Management Plan to indicate how the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties might be protected with regard for example, to levels of noise, the management of waste disposal, and the maintenance of the property’s amenity spaces.

The use of the premises by five people living in an HMO could be comparable to the number of persons otherwise living in the building as a family. Its occupation by unrelated individuals may lead to some intensification of the use of the premises, with separate and more frequent deliveries and visitors, and separate, more frequent journeys, but I consider that any such intensification, if it were to occur, would not significantly or adversely affect the character of the area.

However, the LPA refers to the occupation of the area by families, and various letters of objection to the proposal are testament to the stability and general social cohesion which a more permanent occupation of the houses brings to the character of the area, with families knowing their neighbours and children playing together.

The use of the appeal premises as an HMO would be likely, in my judgement, to introduce a more transient form of occupation to the area, to the detriment of its family based, more stable social character.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not accord with LP policy HOU04 in that it fails to demonstrate that it would not have a harmful impact upon the character of the surrounding area.

Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) is less pertinent with regard to the effect upon the social character of the area, concentrating as it does, more upon physical considerations and where I have considered that no significantly adverse changes would occur. Its policy D14 is relevant only in so far as it relates to possible noise concerns and to which I have referred briefly with regard to the absence of an HMO management plan. The same limited relevance applies to LP policy ECC02 in so far as it refers to noise mitigation. LP policies CDH01 and HOU02 are not relevant to the issue of the social character of the area, nor are the RSPD and the CSPD which are concerned with the physical aspects of design. However, these matters do not overcome the conflict with the aforementioned policy.

There are no material planning considerations that indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.