Appeal 6004769

The appeal is dismissed.

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 issues are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposal, having regard to relevant development plan policy concerning Houses in [name] (HMOs); • whether satisfactory living conditions would be provided for occupants of the HMO, with particular regard to the adequacy of the communal internal space and noise and disturbance; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties, with particular reference to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site relates to a large 2-storey property situated at the end of a row of similar scale properties, located within a predominantly residential area. Its current use is as a small HMO (use class C3), accommodating up to 6 unrelated individuals. The proposal seeks to introduce an additional 4 occupants, within the existing accommodation, which would change the use to a large HMO (sui generis). The site is identified as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 2, 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 relevance to the location of the proposal, criterion 2 sets out that HMOs should be in areas with a PTAL rating of 4-6, with good access to public transport, local services and facilities. The supporting text to the policy explains that its aim is 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

Whilst the proposal would not increase the number of bedrooms within the HMO, it would result in a further 4 occupants and this intensification of the use is material in this context. The site’s PTAL rating of 2 falls significantly short of the level required by Policy HO10. Allowing a large HMO in such a location with poor public transport connectivity and limited public services and facilities close to the site, 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 Policy HO10.

Criterion 3 of the policy sets out that proposals should not be located within a residential street or area that is characterised by family housing. The surrounding area comprises housing of a scale suitable for families, with limited evidence of HMO use. Whilst the proposal would not result in a high concentration of HMOs in the locality, it would intensify the use at the property.

The proposal would not increase the number of bedrooms but would allow 4 of these to be double occupancy. Whilst this may not increase the number of households, it is likely to result in a higher level of activity at the property. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that individuals sharing rooms would have aligned patterns of movement, and it is therefore reasonable to anticipate an increase in comings and goings. As such, the proposal would give rise to a materially different level of activity and intensity of use compared with what would typically be expected for a dwelling of this size or the current use. Consequently, the proposal would also conflict with criterion 3 of Policy HO10.

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 relevant development plan policies do not specify minimum standards for shared spaces within HMOs. However, Policy HO10 states that HMOs should provide adequate provision of communal facilities and areas, provide high-quality accommodation with rooms of an adequate size for their purpose, ensure an adequate level of kitchen facilities and provide communal areas for lounging and dining to address the daily needs for the number of occupants.

Communal space in HMOs is important to ensure that all occupants have the opportunity, should they choose, to dine and socialise in a comfortable shared environment, supporting their wellbeing and helping to reduce isolation. Whilst the property benefits from a large kitchen area, there is limited space within this room for the provision of dining and seating furniture whilst retaining adequate circulation. As a result, opportunities for social interaction would be highly constrained, increasing the likelihood that residents would spend most of their time in their individual bedrooms, potentially leading to isolation. The proposal would therefore not provide adequate shared facilities for lounging and dining to meet the needs of the number of occupants.

The appellant has set out that there is an existing licence for the HMO use that has been in place since 2019 and limits the maximum number of occupants to 11. I do not have the details before me in respect of what has been considered within the licence. Nevertheless, this is covered by a separate regulatory regime and does not outweigh the harm identified in respect of the living conditions of the occupants through the lack of adequate shared facilities and the conflict with the development plan.

Furthermore, the increase in occupancy will result in a greater number of comings and goings and activity within communal areas. This would create a greater level of noise and disturbance within the HMO, particularly to those occupying the ground floor rooms which are close to the shared kitchen and living space and the main entrance to the property. As a result, the proposal would fail to ensure an appropriate living environment for occupants of the property. Whilst the appellant has advised that the HMO licence requires sound attenuation measures to be implemented, no details have been provided in respect of this and I am not satisfied that this would effectively mitigate the increased noise and disturbance, particularly due to the internal layout of the property.

I conclude that the proposal would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for occupants of the HMO, with particular regard to the adequacy of the communal internal space and noise and disturbance. As a result, it would conflict with Policies HO10 and GR1 of the Local Plan and Policies D3, D6 and D14 of the London Plan (2021). Collectively these seek to ensure that, amongst other things, development provides high-quality accommodation with comfortable and functional layouts containing adequate communal facilities that address the daily needs of the occupants, helps prevent or mitigate the impacts of noise and achieves indoor environments that are comfortable and inviting for people to use.

The proposal would result in a greater level of occupation at the property which would lead to increased activity in respect of the use of the communal spaces, including the garden, as well as comings and goings to and from the property. This would result in a significant materially different level of activity compared to that which would typically be expected for a dwelling of this size or that associated with the current HMO use at the property. Given the residential character of the street, the increased activity would likely result in a level of noise and disturbance to neighbouring residential properties, and particularly [address], which would cause harm to their living conditions.

Whilst the HMO licence may cover matters in respect of management and sound attenuation, the details have not been provided as part of this appeal. Although complaints may not have been received by the Council in respect of noise and disturbance from the existing use, the evidence before me identifies that there will be a material increase in occupants which would likely result in a noise and disturbance issue. An HMO licence operates under a separate regulatory regime, and based on the information available, I am not satisfied that the proposal would avoid harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents, nor that any such harm could be mitigated through the licensing process.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring properties, with particular reference to noise and disturbance. It would therefore conflict with Local Plan Policies HO10 and GR1 and London Plan Policies D3 and D14. Collectively these seek to ensure that, amongst other things, proposals do not result in a harmful impact on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties, they help prevent or mitigate the impacts of noise and they achieve indoor and outdoor environments that are comfortable and inviting for people to use.

No alterations or extensions are proposed as part of the development and therefore there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property or surrounding area due to visual effects of the development. Nevertheless, this would be neutral in the planning balance.

HMOs can provide a valued source of low-cost accommodation and are important for addressing the housing needs of specific groups of people, including young people and those on lower incomes. I acknowledge that the scheme would allow for a greater number of occupants, although it would not create any additional rooms. However, any benefits to be drawn in this sense would not outweigh the harm that I have identified above in respect of the location and living conditions of the occupants of the HMO and of neighbouring properties.

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.