Appeal 6004618

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the Council of the London Borough of Harrow. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (2026) (the Local Plan) was adopted on 24 March 2026. This now forms part of the statutory development plan and replaces policies of the Harrow Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) and the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013), and I have therefore had due regard to this in my decision. The Council has confirmed which policies are most relevant to the decision and both parties have been provided with the opportunity to make representations on these policies.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposal, having regard to relevant development plan policy concerning Houses in [name] (HMOs).

The appeal property is currently used as a 6-bedroom HMO. The proposal seeks to introduce a seventh occupier, which would change the use from a small HMO (use class C4) to a large HMO (sui generis). The site is identified as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 1b, which is towards the lower end of a scale extending up to 6, indicating poor access to public transport.

Local Plan Policy HO10 states that proposals for HMOs will only be permitted where they meet specific criteria. Of particular relevance to this appeal is criterion 2 which requires HMOs be located in areas with a PTAL rating of 4-6, with good access to public transport, local services and facilities. The supporting text to Policy HO10 explains that the policy aims to direct HMO conversions, which intensify the use of existing premises, to areas with good access to public transport and local services and facilities, thereby promoting the use of sustainable modes of transport and reducing the need to travel by private car.

The proposal would intensify the use of an existing HMO through an increase in the number of occupants. Policy HO10 concerns all proposals seeking planning permission for housing with shared facilities and therefore is applicable to the

The appellant refers to an appeal decision from Redbridge1 to suggest that Policy HO10 should not apply to intensification of existing HMO uses. The reasoning in that decision appears to relate to a policy specifically addressing the conversion of larger houses to HMOs. Policy HO10 contains no such limitation. As such, the Redbridge decision is not directly comparable and does not alter the interpretation of Policy HO10 in this case.

The proposal would intensify the existing HMO use in a location with poor access to public transport and services. Whilst the increase is only 1 additional person, this intensification of use is nevertheless material in this context. The site’s PTAL rating of 1b falls significantly short of the level required by Policy HO10. Allowing a large HMO in such a location with poor public transport connectivity would increase reliance on private vehicles to access day-to-day services, employment opportunities, and community facilities, and would undermine the policy objective of concentrating HMOs in sustainable, well‐connected areas. The proposal therefore conflicts with criterion 2 of Local Plan Policy HO10.

The appellant contends that the proposal would not materially alter travel patterns or increase reliance on private vehicles, citing the Council’s officer report which refers to a legal agreement preventing future occupants from obtaining parking permits. However, no such agreement has been provided as part of this appeal. Without a binding mechanism, there is nothing to prevent future occupants from parking on surrounding streets, which could increase car use and undermine the Council’s sustainable travel objectives.

Two appeal decisions, involving an increase from 6 to 7 occupants in existing HMOs, have also been submitted by the appellant. The Nottingham decision2 focussed on community balance and neighbour living conditions, whilst the Harrow decision3 considered the internal living conditions for future occupants. Both acknowledged that adding a seventh occupier would constitute intensification and addressed whether an additional occupant would cause harm in respect of the matters under consideration. Neither decision dealt with locational sustainability or PTAL considerations, which are central to the consideration of this appeal. Given the limited relevance of these decisions to the specific policy conflict in this case, on the basis of the information before me, they do not alter my assessment in respect of this main issue. 1 APP/W5780/W/25/3361184 2 APP/Q3060/W/24/3357341 3 APP/M5450/W/24/3337694

I therefore conclude that the appeal site is not a suitable location for the proposal, having regard to relevant development plan policy concerning HMOs, and would conflict with Local Plan Policy HO10.

The Council has not raised any objections in respect of the living conditions of neighbouring properties of future occupants, loss of family housing, design and the character and appearance of the area, or management of the HMO. There is no evidence before me that would lead me to a different view on these matters. Nevertheless, these are neutral in the planning balance and do not lead me to a different conclusion in respect of the main issue.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.