Appeal 6005480

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal relates to a two-storey two-bedroom 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 a House in [name] (“HMO”) with five bedrooms (and for up to five people), along with alterations and extensions to the roof and elsewhere to facilitate that change.

The appellant drew my attention to several grants of planning permission or lawful development certificates (“LDCs”) among the property’s planning history: a 2018 LDC for a roof extension involving rear dormer window1; a 2025 planning permission for a single-storey infill rear extension and part first-floor rear extension, along with a single-storey front porch extension2; and a 2025 LDC for the erection of a rear outbuilding following removal of the existing decking3. I address these together as a fallback position for the appellant in the “other matters” section below.

The Council’s appeal statement referred to an emerging supplementary planning document (“SPD”) for 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 appellant objected to the Council introducing what they described as “new evidence” during the appeal. 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to its content or 1 [name]: 18/1630/192 2 [name]: 24/4109/HSE 3 [name]: 25/0216/192 current status; in this light, as draft guidance it carries very limited weight here, and the emerging SPD has not been a determinative factor in my decision.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 issues are: • 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 effect of the development on living conditions for neighbouring residents; and • Whether the development would adequately mitigate its effects on the surrounding highway and transport networks.

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 24% for two bedrooms and 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, that they would not have a harmful impact on the character or amenities of the surrounding area, and that they are easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking.

The appellant considers that the appeal property should not be considered a family dwelling as it currently has only two bedrooms,. However, the supporting text to Policy HOU02 notes that many families live in two-bedroom accommodation, and that “well-designed properties of between 70m2 and 79m2 gross internal floor area can now be considered as family homes as they are capable of accommodating four bedspaces” 4. It was indicated on the planning application form that the existing gross internal area of the property is 110m2. I was not provided with a room-by-room breakdown of the existing accommodation (and it is not therefore clear whether that floorspace figure includes the void on the loft floor, or some of the works described in paragraph 3 above), the property is of a size and type which could serve (and, presumably, for much of its existence has served) as family housing. 4 [name] 5.5.6

The appeal scheme would have separately-let HMO rooms (with a shared kitchen serving all occupants, and shared toilet/bath facilities for three of the five bedrooms; two would have ensuite provision). It would therefore mean a 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 specific need for HMO accommodation, the appellant has submitted information from two estate or letting agents. This included a list of 19 one-bed rooms which had been let in the N12 postcode during the last four months of 2025, and both agents’ conclusions that there is a high demand for such accommodation in and around [name]. 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 a demand for HMO rooms, 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 suggest 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 northern side of Finchley Park, a predominantly residential street made up for the most part of semi-detached and terraced houses. The semi-detached pair of which it is part is the first building on that side of the street when entering from the nearby [address], and it is close to the private car park at the rear of the commercial properties on the [address]. Nevertheless, the Finchley Park quickly becomes noticeably quieter and calmer than the busy [address]. While there are some purpose-built flats further east along the street, the part closest to the appeal property appears to be characterised by single family dwellings.

The evidence before me suggests that there are no other HMOs nearby on Finchley Park, so there would not be a harmful over-concentration of such uses. 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, which I address below). The use of the property as an HMO would also be likely increase the transience of the population in the area. The development would be likely to cause some loss of the family residential character of the street.

Taking all of these points together, I conclude that the property and location are not suitable for the proposed HMO use. There would therefore be conflict with Policies CDH01, HOU02 and HOU04 of the BLP, the principal relevant provisions of which I have set out above.

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 most 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.

[name] have already described above, the use of the appeal property as a five-bedroom HMO would be likely to result in many more comings and goings, and a more intensive use of the cycle store in the rear garden, than would be the case with a two or three-bedroom family home. This would result in there being a far greater potential for noise and disturbance to surrounding occupiers.

Again, I note the appellant’s reference to the proximity of the nearby [address], and seepage of noise and activity from that street into Finchley Park. [name] have noted above, however, the prevailing character and environment becomes much quieter very quickly on moving away from the [address]. Furthermore, the use of the appeal site would not be time limited in the way that might be expected with the nearby commercial properties and their associated car park. Disturbance caused by residents and visitors arriving and leaving the appeal property would be difficult to control, and would not be limited to particular times of day. Use of the remaining part of the rear garden – much of the existing garden space would be given over to the proposed storage outbuilding – would be likely to take place late into the evening during the warmer months, and there would be a considerable risk of unacceptable noise disturbance to the occupiers of Nos 2 and [address] on either side.

I conclude that the development would be harmful to living conditions for the occupiers of neighbouring properties, as a result of noise and other disturbance. As such, it would conflict with Policies CDH01 and HOU04 of the BLP, and Policy D13 of the London Plan 2021. Together, and among other things, these policies seek to ensure that development, including of HMOs, provides a good standard of amenity for occupiers and neighbours.

The appeal site has a public transport accessibility level (“PTAL”) of 2, indicating low public transport accessibility. The site’s PTAL score is not disputed by the appellant, though they argue that it “is located very close to a PTAL 4 area, very good bus routes and North Finchley Town Centre, and within walking distance to Woodside Park Station”. However, while I am sure that legitimate criticisms could be made of the PTAL methodology, it provides an impartial assessment of connectivity which can be applied neutrally to any site or proposal.

The site is within a controlled parking zone, and the scheme is described by the appellant as car-free. The appellant suggests that “HMO tenants have very low car ownership rates (lower income tenants) [so] there is no justification to restrict car parking permits through a legal agreement”. However, in my experience that is not an assumption which can be relied upon; it is quite likely to expect that at least some residents might own private cars. There is no space for off-street car parking provision on the site, so any demand would need to be accommodated within the CPZ and would be likely to exacerbate parking stress in the area.

The appellant has referred to another appeal decision in Barnet in which the Inspector (allowing a scheme of nine dwellings) imposed a condition relating to car-free housing5. In this case, I note that the Council has highlighted the cost implications of amending the relevant Traffic Regulation Order (“TRO”), to which the appellant has objected (though their figure of “more than £5,500” does not match the £3,577.86 quoted in the Council’s evidence). Amending a TRO would come at some financial cost to the Council (in terms of officer time and suchlike), and it is not unreasonable for it to seek to have those costs covered. For whatever reason, this was not a matter raised in the other appeal decision.

The Planning Practice Guidance (“the PPG”) is clear that no payment of money or other consideration can be required when granting planning permission6. The PPG also advises that a negatively worded condition limiting the development that can take place until a planning obligation or other agreement has been entered into is unlikely to be appropriate in the majority of cases, not least because ensuring that a planning obligation is entered into ahead of any grant of planning permission provides certainty for all parties about what is being agreed. It suggests that “in exceptional circumstances a negatively worded condition requiring a planning obligation or other agreement to be entered into before certain development can commence may be appropriate, where there is clear evidence that the delivery of the development would otherwise be at serious risk”7, but there is nothing before me to suggest that such “exceptional circumstances” apply in this case. [name] acknowledge that a condition may be used to secure car-free housing in some circumstances, I am not persuaded that (had the development been otherwise acceptable) it would have been the appropriate course of action here.

I conclude that, because its “car-free” status would not be secured, the development would not adequately mitigate its effects on the surrounding highway and transport networks. It would conflict with Policy TRC03 of the BLP, and Policies T4 and T6.1 of the London Plan 2021, which impose maximum parking standards for residential development, and which seek to manage parking demand and impacts (including noting that developers may be required to make contributions towards the implementation or alteration and monitoring of CPZs).

[name] have explained above, the appellant has already secured consent (through planning permission and LDCs) to enlarge the appeal property. I understand from drawings in the appellant’s statement that the roof extension covered by one of the LDCs is larger than that proposed in this case. The existing consents are a fallback position for the appellant; it appears that together they would have a greater impact on the appearance of the building than the appeal scheme. However, the Council’s concerns in this case related to the family residential character of the area, rather than matters of appearance.

While the fallback dormer would be larger than that proposed here, and arguably would cause some harm to the appearance of the appeal property, its visual impact would be very limited by its positioning at the back of the building. In my view any harm which might arise would not be comparable to the harm to the character of the area which I have described above, along with the other harms I have found. The fallback position does not therefore weigh significantly in favour of this appeal proposal. 5 [name]: 6000330 6 Paragraph: 005 [name]: 21a-005-20190723 7 Paragraph: 010 [name]: 21a-[phone]

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.