Appeal 6005378

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed development was described on the planning application form as follows: “Change of use of an existing single dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a House in [name] (Use Class C4) for up to five occupants, together with the erection of a single-storey rear extension and associated internal alterations. The proposal includes reconfiguration of internal room layouts to provide five bedrooms, shared facilities and upgraded fire-safety measures. No alterations are proposed to the front elevation and the overall height of the property remains unchanged.” I have used a more concise wording in the banner above, omitting the second and third sentences which are not in themselves descriptive of development.

The Council’s appeal statement referred to an emerging supplementary planning document (“SPD”) for Houses in [name] (“HMOs”). This would evidently provide additional guidance relating to that use, including in respect of identifying the need for HMOs, and locational relationships with institutions such as universities or hospitals which may be drivers of specific demand or need for such accommodation. The Council’s statement included one extract from the draft SPD, beyond which I was not provided with any further information as to its content or current status; in this light, as draft guidance it carries very limited weight here, and the emerging SPD has not been a determinative factor in my decision.

The main issue is whether the property and location are suitable for the proposed HMO use, having particular regard to the need for such housing, the effect on the housing mix (including the supply of family housing), and the effect on the character of the area.

The appeal relates to a two-storey semi-detached property, currently used as a single dwellinghouse within Use Class C3. The proposed development is the change of use of the property to an HMO with five bedrooms (and for up to five people). The appeal scheme also includes a rear extension, which would replace an existing “lean-to” structure, and internal alterations to facilitate the proposed change.

Policy HOU02 of the 2025 Barnet Local Plan (“the BLP”) seeks to ensure that residential developments provide a mix of dwelling types and sizes to help meet current and future housing needs in the borough. Among other things, it says that all housing schemes are expected to include a proportion of family-sized homes, and to reflect the dwelling size priorities set out in Table 7 of the BLP, unless it has been robustly demonstrated that a variation to the preferred mix is justified on a site-specific basis. For market housing, the development plan (based on the Council’s 2018 Strategic Housing Market Assessment) identifies a need for only 6% of units to have one bedroom, compared with 40% for three bedrooms.

Policy HOU4 sets out the requirements for specialist housing, including HMOs, and provides four criteria with which such proposals should comply. Among other things, these require it to be demonstrated that they would meet an identified need for HMOs, and that they would not have a harmful impact on the character or amenities of the surrounding area.

The appeal property is of a size and type which could serve (and, presumably, for much of its existence has served) as family housing, though I understand that two of its bedrooms are currently being independently let to tenants. The appeal scheme would have separately-let bedrooms, each with an ensuite shower and WC, a shared kitchen and separate communal living/dining room. It would mean the loss of a dwelling suitable for family occupation from the borough’s housing stock, and its replacement with five individual HMO rooms. As such, it would not align with the housing mix priorities set out in the development plan.

In terms of identifying a need for HMO accommodation, the appellant has described there being “several universities within reasonable travel distance, as well as major employers such as nearby hospitals”, though there is no detail of whether there are specific HMO accommodation needs arising from any of those uses, nor how close or accessible they would be. The appellant also referred to significant interest from prospective tenants when the two rooms already let in the property were being advertised, as well as local letting agents’ comments that there is “a strong demand in the area for well-managed shared accommodation Identified need for HMO housing”.

There is no dispute between the main parties that, in line with the advice in the supporting text to Policy H9 of the London Plan 2021, HMOs are in important part of London’s housing offer. However, while I acknowledge that there is evidently a demand for HMO rooms in the area, the evidence which has been put before me by the appellant does not indicate that there is an identified need for that type of accommodation in this part of the borough; the partial information does not demonstrate that there is a specific case for providing a housing mix other than in line with the development plan priorities summarised above.

The appeal property is on the western side of The Greenway, a residential street mainly comprising semi-detached houses. Planning permission was granted for the conversion of its semi-detached “twin”, No 47, to two self-contained flats in a 2018 appeal decision1. I understand that there are a few other similar conversions in the area (though precise details have not been provided to me); there is also an HMO, albeit one without planning permission, at No 126 The Greenway. Overall though, the area close to the appeal property is overwhelmingly characterised by single family dwellings.

As there is only one other HMO nearby, the proposal would not lead to a harmful over-concentration of such uses. It was also evident during my site visit that some properties had had alterations – such as extensions (including a particularly large rear dormer at No 51 next door to the appeal property) and paving over front gardens to provide parking space for two (and in a couple of examples more) vehicles – suggesting there has been some intensification of use (such as might arise when adult children remain in or return to the parental home), even while they remain single family dwellings. Even so, and regardless of the quality of accommodation on offer – which is also not in dispute in this case – in general terms HMOs tend to result in more comings and goings than family housing, more social activity and an associated increased likelihood of noise disturbance. The use of the property as an HMO would also be likely increase the transience of the population in the area. The development would therefore be likely to cause some erosion of the family residential character of the area.

Taking all of these points together, I conclude that the property and location are not suitable for the proposed HMO use. There would be conflict with Policies HOU02 and HOU04 of the BLP, the principal relevant provisions of which I have set out above. To the extent that it seeks to ensure that development responds sensitively to distinctive local character – I acknowledge that the Council did not raise any concerns in respect of appearance, and see no reason to take a different view – there would be limited conflict with Policy CDH01 of the BLP.

The decision notice also referred to conflict with Policy H9 of the London Plan

There is nothing before me to suggest that the appeal property has been vacant or underoccupied for significant periods, nor is it already an HMO which should be protected; these appear to be the two provisions of that policy potentially most relevant to this appeal scheme. However, insofar as Policy H9 seeks to ensure the best use of stock, including by ensuring that new homes meet an identified need (as explained in its supporting text), for the reasons I have just set out there is also some limited conflict with the aims of that policy.

The appeal development would not see any changes made to the front of the property. [name] have briefly addressed in paragraph 13, no concerns were raised in respect of the development’s effect on the appearance of the area. [name] saw during my visit, the existing rear “lean-to” conservatory is in a poor condition; while it is discreetly located at the back of the property so that its visual impact is limited, its replacement with a more sensitive and robust extension would be a modest benefit 1 [name]: APP/N5090/W/18/3207389 of the scheme in terms of appearance. However, this would not outweigh the other harm I have found.

I also note the appellant’s stated intention to carry out a comprehensive refurbishment of the property to a high standard, and to provide well-managed, good-quality residential accommodation over the long-term. I have no reason to doubt those aims, but nothing which has been put before me indicates that achieving them could only be achieved through, and thus might in some way contribute to justifying, the change of use of the property to an HMO.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. [name] have considered the benefits of the scheme which have been put to me, there are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is therefore dismissed.