Appeal 6004542

The appeal is dismissed.

While the appeal proposal seeks a change of use from a single dwellinghouse in Use Class C3, I observed on my site visit that the property was already operating as a House in [name] (HMO), with a layout that accords with the existing floor plan (drawing number: A10/25/02/HM). Regardless of this, I have made my decision on the basis of the appeal proposal before me.

The appellant has confirmed that several appeal decisions referred to in their statement were erroneous and has subsequently provided 3 further appeal decisions1 which they consider to be more relevant. I have accepted submission of these decisions as they were submitted to replace erroneously submitted information and do not introduce materially different points than those put forward previously, therefore they do not amount to a fundamental change. The Council were given an opportunity to comment on these additional documents in the interests of fairness, but no comments were provided.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on:  the supply of family sized homes in Barnet; and  the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site is a dwelling located on a predominantly residential street, with a medical clinic and a hotel also located nearby. The appeal proposal involves the change of use from a Use Class C3 residential dwellinghouse to a 5 bed, 5 person HMO which falls within Use Class C4. No external changes are proposed.

Policy HOU02 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (March 2025) (the Local Plan) 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”. It also sets out dwelling size priorities stating: “All housing schemes are expected to include a proportion of family sized homes and reflect these dwelling size priorities unless it can be robustly demonstrated that a variation to the preferred mix is justified on a site specific basis”. It goes on to say that: “The Council will consider applying flexibility for [name] schemes supported by Policy HOU04”.

With reference to HMOs, the reasoned justification text states that: “The conversion of existing dwellings into flats or HMOs can have a cumulative effect of added pressure on on-street car parking and local services. Residential conversions may be appropriate in certain types of property or street, particularly where they are highly accessible with good PTAL; however, even in such locations they can harm the character of areas by changing external appearance and increasing activity. Such activity can often involve more noise, waste, overcrowding, people movements and increased vehicular movements”.

Policy HOU04 of the Local Plan includes specific criteria that proposals for new HMOs must meet. Proposals must demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the Council’s HMO Licensing Schemes and comply with any relevant standards for HMOs; that they meet an identified need and that they do not create a harmful concentration of such a use in the local area (defined as where three or more of the ten nearest properties are HMOs). Furthermore, proposals for HMOs must demonstrate that they will not have a harmful impact on the character and amenities of the surrounding area, explaining that a HMO Management Plan may be sought to protect living conditions; and ensure that HMOs are easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking.

The main parties have drawn my attention to several appeal decisions in Barnet which concerned conversion of single dwellings to HMOs in areas characterised predominantly by single family dwellings. In a recent appeal decision at 1B Garth Road2, within the same terrace as the appeal proposal before me, the Inspector concluded that information setting out a general level of demand is not the same as demonstrating there is an identified need. They also found that the change from a family home to HMO would cause harm to the character of an area due to the additional comings and goings of up to six unrelated individuals at different times of the day and night, which would indicate the absence of a settled family and be readily discernible due to the tight-knit residential street.

Conversely, the Inspectors at 66 Sturgess Avenue3 and 47 Netherlands Road4 considered that need could be determined by evidence of existing HMO occupation and information such as marketing data and tenancy agreements. They also 2 Appeal Ref: 6000295 3 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/W/20/3261065 4 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/W/24/3339184 recognised that, while HMOs could lead to increased comings and goings, there was limited evidence to suggest that this would occur at a level that caused a harmful change to character.

These appeal decisions are distinctly different in terms of their approach to considering the need for family homes and the assessment of character impacts. However, in both instances I consider that the approach taken by the Inspector in the [address] appeal is more appropriate. The character of the area in the [address] appeal is more readily transferable to the current scheme given the proximity to the current appeal site, therefore I afford it greater weight than the other 2 appeals insofar as it relates to character impacts. In terms of need for family housing, I also consider that the approach taken by the Inspector in the [address] appeal is more appropriate, as they identify that need and demand are distinct from one another which better reflects the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework). Therefore, this appeal is afforded greater weight insofar as it relates to the need for family housing. Even if I was in agreement with the approach to need taken in the [address] and [address] appeals, these appeals seemingly provided detailed evidence to support the position on need, whereas I have only been presented with general assertions regarding need in the current appeal.

The pre-existing floor plan submitted with the appeal (drawing number: A10/25/01/HM) shows that the Use Class C3 dwelling had 3 bedrooms, and consequently it would be defined as a family sized home. Although the proposed HMO would provide family sized accommodation in terms of the number of bedrooms proposed, it would not function as such and its layout would not be conducive to occupation by families. Therefore, it would not address the need for family homes.

I have been provided with evidence that purportedly sets out the need for HMOs, but this only details high level information relating to a general demand for shared housing. [name] recognise that a demand for HMOs could exist, this does not equate to establishing a need. I am not presented with any other evidence that sets out a specific identified need, either in the locality, boroughwide or across a wider area.

While there are limited examples of commercial and community uses in the vicinity, as well as an existing HMO elsewhere on the street, [address] is largely characterised by single family homes. Although the proposal does not involve external changes, the assessment of character is a holistic consideration that includes more than just visual impact; it also includes consideration of how a proposal would be used, including intensity of use and patterns of activity.

While the proposal would not give rise to any concerns regarding HMO standards or an overconcentration of HMOs in the area, it would allow 5 unrelated and separate individuals to live at [address]. As each individual could maintain different social and working patterns, this could lead to a significant increase in the intensity of the use of the site and introduce different patterns of activity at different times of the day and night.

[name] acknowledge that a single family dwelling could result in the same number of occupants residing at [address] and patterns of activity of a single family dwelling would be materially different as it would likely involve less individual activity, compared to an HMO where occupants are unrelated and would therefore be more likely to live entirely separate lives.

A management plan has been submitted with the appeal, with the suggestion that a planning condition could be imposed to require adherence to this. However, the content of this document would not assuage concerns regarding the potential impacts on character noted above. In any event, I am not convinced that a condition that imposed restrictions on the lifestyles of unspecified individuals would meet the relevant conditions tests.

In conclusion, the proposal would adversely affect the supply of family homes in Barnet and would not be in accordance with Policies HOU02 and HOU04 of the Local Plan and Policies D3 and H9 of the London Plan 2021 (adopted March 2021) (the London Plan). These policies, taken together, prioritise family housing but permit conversion to an HMO where, amongst other things, they contribute to meeting local and strategic housing need and demonstrate that they will not have a harmful impact on the character of the surrounding area. The proposal would also not accord with paragraphs 61, 63 and 135 of the Framework as it would reduce the supply of housing for families and would not be sympathetic to local character.

The proposal would also not accord with sections 6 and 15 of the Residential

which provides guidance on enhancing local character and conversions to HMOs.

The Council have referred to the [name] and [name] (adopted October 2016) in their reason for refusal. However, the document is not obviously relevant to character issues, and I am not directed to any specific section of the document. In the absence of any information to demonstrate the relevance of the SPD to the appeal scheme, it has not formed part of the determination on this

The area is characterised by family dwellings, and the increased intensity of use and different patterns of activity that would result from a new 5 person HMO would increase the likelihood of noise and disturbance impacts on neighbouring occupiers on [address], for example from increased comings and goings from residents and visitors. Consequently, this would create a significant risk of noise and disturbance impacts on neighbouring occupiers.

While there are statutory regimes that help to control noise impacts, they would not effectively address more incidental impacts that arise by virtue of the increased activity and intensity of use. For the same reasons, I am not convinced that a management plan, secured by condition, would fully mitigate these incidental impacts.

The appeal decisions referred to above have also been drawn to my attention with regard to the impact on living conditions. The Inspector in the [address] appeal considered that the frequency and nature of the activities associated with use as an HMO would result in undue noise and disturbance which would be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. However, the Inspectors in the [address] and [address] appeals both considered that the type and scale of activity associated with a 5 person HMO would be similar to a single dwelling and would not lead to noise and disturbance impacts for the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties. I agree with the [address] Inspector in relation to these issues, as the proposal would introduce a different pattern and intensity of use and it has not been demonstrated that noise and disturbance impacts can be adequately mitigated. Therefore, I afford this appeal greater weight relative to the other 2 appeals insofar as it relates to the assessment of noise and disturbance impacts.

In conclusion, the proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance. Therefore, it would not be in accordance with Local Plan Policies HOU04 and ECC02 and London Plan Policies D3 and D14. These policies, taken together, seek to protect living conditions for occupiers of neighbouring properties, including through avoiding or mitigating noise impacts. For the same reasons, the proposal would not accord with paragraph 198 of the Framework.

The proposal would not accord with section 15 of the Residential Design Guidance SPD which recognises the potential impacts of HMOs related to noise and disturbance and seeks to minimise impacts on neighbouring properties. The proposal would also not accord with section 2.14 of the [name] and [name], which seeks to assess and address noise impacts arising or existing for a new development.

The Council have referred to Local Plan Policy CDH05 in their reason for refusal. While the policy supporting text refers to conversions, the policy itself refers to extensions. In the absence of any information to demonstrate the relevance of this policy to the appeal scheme, it has not formed part of my determination on this

The proposal would provide residential accommodation that addresses relevant standards and is located in an area easily accessible by a range of transport modes. However, these are also benefits that would be achieved through retention of a family dwelling, therefore they would only have very limited weight.

My attention has also been drawn to an appeal at 24 Babington Road5 in Barnet. The Inspector in this case concluded that the introduction of an HMO would not cause adverse effects on local character or the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, the character of the area in this case was identified as diverse and featured a large student accommodation building and 9 HMOs. The Inspector also noted that, due to the high numbers of existing HMOs and student accommodation, the surrounding area was already accustomed to a certain level of noise and disturbance impacts associated with such uses. These are significant points of difference with the current appeal scheme, and as a result, the appeal would only have very limited weight.

It has been put to me that, in the event that the proposed use is considered to cause adverse impacts, such impacts could be mitigated through condition. With regards to the suggested management plan condition, as I have detailed above, I do not consider a condition which sought to impose controls on the lifestyles of unspecified individuals would meet the relevant conditions tests. Conversely, a 5 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/W/23/3334885 simple management plan could meet the tests but would not provide sufficient certainty that impacts would not materialise or would be appropriately addressed.

With regard to a condition capping the occupancy of the property at 5 individuals, this would not address the harms I have identified above as these harms would occur as a result of 5 persons occupying the site. With regard to the suggested condition to retain the property within Use Class C4, this would not address any of the impacts identified, which would arise due to the C4 use. I note that Use Class C4 only benefits from permitted development rights to Use Class C3, which reduces any concern that the property could subsequently convert to a non-residential use that could be unsuitable in this location.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which indicate a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.