Appeal 6005972

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposal in the banner heading is taken from the application form. However, the Council has described the proposal as ‘single storey rear extension with rooflight, insertion of 1 no rooflight to front and rear main roofslopes. Conversion into 7-bedroom, 8 person House in [name] (HMO) (Use Class Sui Generis). Provision of cycle storage’. As this is a more accurate description, that specifies the number of bedrooms proposed, I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Following the submission of the appeal, the appellant submitted a unilateral undertaking (UU) dated 12 May 2026 pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which includes provisions relating to parking restrictions. I provided the Council with an opportunity to comment, and I shall return to this later in my decision.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with particular regard to outlook; and • the effect of the development on the living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and • whether the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to space standards and privacy; and • the effect of the development on the housing mix of the area; and • the effect of the development on the availability of on street car parking in the area.

The appeal site relates to a semi-detached property located within a predominantly residential area. The proposal seeks the conversion of the existing 7-bedroom use class C3 dwelling house into a large, sui generis, House in [name] (HMO) for up to 8 occupants at the property.

A full-width rear extension is proposed, creating an additional enlargement to the building where an existing rear extension of moderate depth is already in place. Although the proposal is single storey, its significant height and depth would result in a substantial built form extending continuously along the boundary with the neighbouring property, [address], over a depth of more than 6m. Combined with its considerable height of over 3m, and exacerbated by the flat roof and parapet wall finish along the side boundary, the scale and bulk of the extension would appear visually oppressive and overbearing for the adjoining occupiers at No 87. The development would be detrimental to their outlook, thereby adversely affecting their living conditions.

Whilst the appellant has referred to a 60 degree rule in assessing the proposal, I find no reference to this within the adopted policies provided. Nor have I been provided details of this assessment within the Council’s supplementary planning documents, which would form a material consideration to this appeal. In any event, the physical presence of the substantial scale and bulk of the extension along the common boundary at No 87 would be experienced not solely from openings within this property but also within the garden area. I have found that an oppressive environment would be created for those adjoining occupiers with a subsequent loss of outlook.

The Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (RDGSPD) states that extensions to properties should not be overbearing or unduly obtrusive and care should be taken to ensure they do not result in harmful sense of enclosure or overbearing impact on adjoining properties. The proposal would conflict with this relevant guidance, which is a material consideration and reinforces my findings.

Furthermore, whilst not determinative to the appeal, I have had regard to the guidance in the [name] and Construction (SDCSPD) (2016). The Council are not explicit as to where the development conflicts with this guidance, and I find minimal reference to outlook concerns arising from an overbearing impact in development within the document.

For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the proposed rear extension would have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with particular regard to outlook. The proposal is contrary to Policy CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) (BLP) which requires extensions to properties to maintain an acceptable outlook and adequate spacing between any surrounding buildings. I further find conflict with Policy HOU04 of the BLP in so far as the policy requires proposals for HMOs to demonstrate that they will not have a harmful impact on the amenities of surrounding areas. I find no conflict with Policy ECC02 of the BLP which relates to environmental considerations in development proposals.

I further find that the development is contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021) (LP) in so far as it requires development proposals to deliver appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity. Further, I find no conflict with Policy D14 of the LP which requires development to avoid significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life.

The proposed HMO use is residential in nature. In addition, the scale and intensity of use, even with 8 unrelated individuals, is relatively modest and there is little evidence to show that such usage is inherently problematic. It is not shown that the occupancy and layout is so significant as to have a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of local residents due to noise and disturbance or the frequency of comings and goings at the property. Any additional noise and disturbance as a result of the HMO, along with the potential for anti-social behaviour, would not necessarily be greater than might occur if the property were occupied by a large family at the 7-bedroom property.

There is no evidence before me of any commentary from the Council’s environmental health officer regarding the need to install sound insulation to mitigate against noise transmission to the adjoining semi-detached neighbour, which is a material consideration to which I attach significant weight. I further acknowledge that the appellant has provided an HMO management plan which covers matters of antisocial behaviour and noise management, and had I been minded to allow the appeal, a condition could have been added to secure compliance with this plan.

The Council have referred to the RDGSPD and the SDCSPD in reason for refusal 2 of the decision notice. Whilst the above guidance does not have the status of policy, the documents are material considerations. I note that RDGSPD requires that the impact of development on the amenity of future residents and neighbouring properties should be minimised; considerations which have been accounted for in my reasoning, and where I find no conflict with regard to noise and disturbance. Turning to the RDGSPD, the Council are not explicit as to where the development conflicts with this guidance, where I find minimal reference to HMO development within the document and no conflict with the noise design principles specified.

For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on the living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance. I find that the development is in accordance with Policy HOU04 of the BLP in so far as it requires proposals for HMOs to demonstrate that they will not have a harmful impact on the amenities of surrounding areas. Additionally, I find no conflict with Policy ECC02 of the BLP which, amongst other requirements, requests that development avoids generation of unacceptable noise levels close to noise sensitive uses. I further find no conflict with Policy CDH05 of the BLP which relates to design and living conditions considerations in proposals for extensions.

Further, the development complies with Policy D3 of the LP in so far as it seeks development to achieve safe, secure and inclusive environments and help prevent or mitigate the impacts of noise. Further, I find no conflict with Policy D14 of the LP which requires development to avoid significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life.

Policy HOU04 (C) of the BLP sets out criteria to be considered in proposals for new HMOs, including, in (C) (a) demonstration that the Council’s HMO licensing scheme are met, (C) (b) that the development meets an identified need and does not create a harmful concentration of such a use in a local area (where three or more of the ten nearest properties are HMOs), (C) (c) demonstrate that they will not have a harmful impact on the character and amenities of the surrounding area and (C) (d) are easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking. I will turn to Criteria (C) (b) to (d) of Policy HOU04 later in my reasoning.

The policy further sets out that where an existing HMO is of a reasonable standard, it will be protected unless it is demonstrated that there is no local need for such accommodation. There is no dispute between the parties that the appeal property is currently in use as a C3 dwelling house. As such, the latter element of the policy is not applicable.

With regard to policy criteria (C) (a) of Policy HOU04 of the BLP, the Council’s HMO licensing team have been consulted on the proposal and comment that 3 of the proposed bedrooms, shown as one person occupancy bedrooms, Nos 2, 4 and 5 on the proposed plans, would not meet the required HMO space standards set out in Standards for Houses in Multiple Occupation London Borough of Barnet (2022) (SHMO). The consultation response states that a minimum floorspace of 10sqm is required and that the 3 bedrooms identified would fall below this requirement at just over 8.5sqm, 7.3sqm and 7.3sqm respectively.

However, I note from the SHMO that the minimum floor area for any room used for sleeping in ‘two or more room lettings’ would be applicable, given the proposed use of the property as a large HMO where future occupants would have access to additional rooms, including a communal kitchen, in addition to a living and dining room. Therefore, under this arrangement, the minimum requirement for a one-person bedroom is 6.5sqm, which all single occupancy bedrooms within the proposal would fully comply with. The double occupancy bedroom (No 3) would also exceed the required standard of 10.2sqm floorspace, where the proposed floor plan indicates a floor area of around 16.8sqm. Furthermore, I find that this is in accordance with national minimum room sizes in HMOs required by licensing legislation1. I also note from my site visit that all proposed bedrooms were of a reasonable size, well-lit with adequate outlook, and that the communal facilities proposed are adequate with regard to size and quantum.

Therefore, whilst I acknowledge the comments from the Council’s licensing team, the proposal complies with the SHMO and national licensing regulations, and therefore the relevant standards for HMOs. I accordingly find no conflict with Policy HOU04 (C) (a).

[name] accept that some of the bedrooms are large enough to be occupied as double rooms by two people, where had I been minded to allow this appeal, an occupancy restriction to 8 occupiers at the property could be secured by condition. 1 The Licensing of Houses in [name] (Mandatory Conditions of Licences) (England) Regulations 2018.

Turning to matters of privacy with the proposed development. From observations at my site visit, I found the arrangement to be satisfactory in the proposed bedrooms. Whilst the window in bedroom 1 would overlook the front area of the property, it is set back substantially from the public footway, reducing opportunities for overlooking from the public realm. Activity in relation to future occupants using the proposed refuse store would not be of an intensity as to warrant concern and I note that the store and door openings are set at an oblique angle to the front window of bedroom 1, thereby reducing opportunities for direct overlooking into this bedroom.

Furthermore, the window in bedroom 2 is set to the side elevation of the property, overlooking the access area to the rear garden. The proposed use of the building as an HMO would not generate excessive footfall and I find that overlooking would not be of a significant concern for future occupiers. Furthermore, bedroom 2 is shown as a bedroom as existing within the dwelling and this arrangement is not dissimilar to other residential developments which incorporate bedrooms at ground floor level. I therefore find no harm with regard to privacy issues by way of overlooking for the future occupiers of the property.

The Council have referred to the RDGSPD and the SDCSPD in reason for refusal 3 of the decision notice. Whilst the above guidance does not have the status of policy, the documents are material considerations. I note that RDGSPD requires that the impact on the amenity of future residents should be minimised; considerations which have been accounted for in my reasoning. With regard to RDGSPD, the Council are not explicit as to where the development conflicts with this guidance, and I find minimal reference to HMO development within the document.

I conclude that the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupants with regard to space standards and privacy. This is in accordance with Policy CDH01 of the BLP which, amongst other matters, requires new development to provide a good standard of amenity for potential occupants with acceptable levels of privacy and outlook and comply with the internal layout and design of new homes. I also find no conflict with Policy HOU04 of the BLP in so far as it requires compliance with the requirements of the Council’s HMO licensing schemes and the relevant standards for HMOs.

I further find the proposal to be in accordance with Policy D3 of the LP which, amongst other requirements, requests proposals to deliver appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity and achieve indoor environments that are comfortable and inviting for people to use. The proposal is also compliant with Policy D6 of the LP which sets out housing development quality and standards which, amongst other matters, requires the provision of adequately sized rooms in housing developments.

There is no dispute that [site address] is located within a residential area that predominantly comprises of family sized dwelling houses. The development relates to a residential dwelling type which provides a form of accommodation for smaller households, which could therefore add to the housing mix within the area.

With regard to policy criteria (C) (a) of Policy HOU04 of the BLP, this matter has been considered in the above reasoning of the appeal, where the living conditions for future occupiers has been addressed and found satisfactory. Turning to need, as set out in criteria Policy HOU04 (C) (b) of the BLP, whilst the Council state in their evidence that there is a requirement for family sized accommodation in all housing schemes, I also note from the evidence provided that there is a requirement for a mix of dwelling types and sizes to help meet current and future housing needs. The appellant has provided evidence from The London Borough of Barnet Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update (2018) (SHMA), which is used to inform specific aspects of housing need, such as housing mix, tenure requirements or specialist housing need.

The data provided identifies over the 2016-2041 period the housing need for market housing of 5 bedrooms and above as 3,100 dwellings, 4% of the overall housing need. From observations at my site visit, the property constitutes a large C3 dwelling house, with 7 bedrooms, and from the evidence provided such properties represent a marginal component of overall market housing need, with family housing need to be met primarily through smaller C3 properties. I also note that the appellant has commented that the SHMA also recognises a continued (and possibly growing) role for HMOs, and I have not been provided with substantive evidence to dispute this.

From the evidence provided, including marketing information of around a six-month period where the appellant was unsuccessful in selling the property as a large dwelling house, I am satisfied that there is a growing need for accommodation providing for smaller households, albeit that this needs to be balanced alongside the other policy requirements. Additionally, the Council does not find a harmful concentration of HMOs in the local area following a search of the [name] register and as such the development is in accordance with the requirements of Policy HOU04 (C) (b) of the BLP.

Turning to criteria (c) of Policy HOU04 (C) of the BLP, I find that from the proposed plans provided, the property would not obviously differ in external appearance to those in the surrounding residential area. Beyond the siting of a refuse storage area within the front garden of the property, there would be no noticeable difference or harmful effect to the character or appearance of the property or the wider locality as a result of the proposed use, which would assimilate within its residential context. I further note that whilst substantial in size, the proposed single storey rear extension, in addition to the proposed bicycle store would be located to the rear of the property and therefore not prominent in the public realm. Moreover, these structures to the rear of the building would not be of an excessive size or scale as to cause harm to the visual amenity of the locality.

Furthermore, I do not have evidence that the occupancy is of a transient or short-term nature, or that this differs substantially from other rental properties within the area. Length of tenancy is not a requirement within the Council’s policy for new HMO development. I further acknowledge that an HMO management plan has been provided by the appellant which amongst other matters addresses waste management and maintenance inspections at the property. Accordingly, I do not find conflict with Policy HOU04 (C) (c) of the BLP which requires development to demonstrate that it will not have a harmful impact on the character or amenities of the surrounding area. Furthermore, matters of living conditions for adjoining residents has been addressed in the above reasoning of this appeal.

With regard to Policy HOU04 (C) (d) of the BLP, the Council states that the development is within an area with a PTAL rating of 4. This denotes relatively good access to public transport. Criteria (d) of the policy requires that new HMO development is easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking. Hence, it is not solely judged on public transport accessibility, but walking and cycling convenience too.

The property is located within a reasonable walking distance of [name], located approximately 366m away. The Council also states that it lies around 309m from Finchley town centre. Additionally, there is ample space in the external area of the property to enable secure, covered bicycle storage to be accommodated. These factors mean that occupants have a genuine choice as to mode of transportation with a range of sustainable transport options and address the requirements of Policy HOU04 (C) (d).

The Council have referred to the RDGSPD and the SDCSPD in reason for refusal 1 of the decision notice. Whilst the above guidance does not have the status of policy, the documents are material considerations. With regard to the RDGSPD, I find that the proposal is broadly in accordance with the principles of conversion, whilst the guidance predates the policy requirements of the adopted BLP. Turning to the SDCSPD, the Council are not explicit as to where the development conflicts with this guidance, and I find minimal reference to HMO development or housing mix within the document.

Accordingly, I therefore conclude that the use of the property as an 8-bedroom HMO would not result in a harmful effect on the mix of housing in the area, that there is a demonstrated need for the development which would not result in in adverse effect on the provision of family sized accommodation or the character of the area. I find no conflict with Policy HOU04 of the BLP with regard to the effect of the development on the housing mix of the area. I have not been provided with the relevant policies from the LP in regard to this matter, and as such do not find conflict with the LP.

The proposal provides no off-street parking provision for the future occupiers of the HMO. The Council considered that the proposal would not address the highways impacts of the development because there was no legal agreement to restrict future occupiers from obtaining residents’ parking permits. Concerns were raised that the proposal would be likely to increase demand and competition for on street parking which would be incompatible with the overall parking management approach. Furthermore, in the absence of a legal agreement, it could potentially increase highway safety risks of anti-social parking, greater circulation of vehicles with drivers searching for road spaces, as well as increase tension between residents. This would undermine the Council’s overall parking management objectives which seek to limit car parking.

A UU was submitted by the appellant with the appeal. The Council have commented in their statement of case that it would rescind their concerns with highways safety, subject to the UU being amended to include a Traffic Management Order contribution of £3,957.78 and a monitoring contribution of £750, as per the published schedule of fees and the Planning Obligations SPD (2025). (POSPD). Although the POSPD has the status of guidance and not policy, it provides a robust and consistent basis for decision making

A further UU has been provided by the appellant, dated 12 May 2026. Whilst the Council have not commented further on this matter, having reviewed the UU, I am satisfied that the above amounts have now been included. Moreover, the restrictions relating to parking permits would address the highways impacts of the appeal scheme and I am satisfied that the financial contribution is necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms, and that the contribution is directly related to the appeal scheme. In addition, as it relates to a standard charge based on the scale and type of development proposed, I consider it to be fairly and reasonably related to the proposal in scale and kind. The UU therefore complies with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework).

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on the availability of on street car parking in the area, nor would it cause harm to highway safety. This is in accordance with Policy TRC03 of the BLP which sets out the Council’s approach to parking management. I further find the proposal to be compliant with Policy T4 of the LP which requires that where appropriate, mitigation, through financial contributions will be required to address adverse transport impacts that are identified. I additionally find no conflict with Policy T6.1 of the LP which sets requirements for new residential development.

[name] note the appellants comments that the proposal would provide 7 bedrooms of affordable shared HMO accommodation within an existing dwelling, these considerations do not overcome the harm I have found for the reasons set out above.

I acknowledge that there are other examples of substantial rear extensions to properties in the locality2, I do not have full details of these examples, where each proposal must be assessed on its own merits and in accordance with current planning policy. From observations at my site visit, whilst the wider area contains examples of rear additions, including two storey developments, this does not overcome the harm that I have identified to the living conditions at the neighbouring property, No 87. Moreover, their existence does not alter my findings.

HMO decisions have been provided for various addresses at [address] EN5 5UR3, [address] NW4 3PG4, [address] N3 3HP5, 3-3A [name] NW4 4BD6, Flat [address] NW11 0AB7 and [address] N11 3DT8. [name] do not have the full details of these cases, the addresses provided do not have the same site context and are sited a distance from the appeal property. Each proposal must in any event be assessed on its own merits. Accordingly, these examples are of limited weight in my decision and do not outweigh the harm that I have found. 2 71,73,75 and [address]. 3 25/1090/FUL. 4 24/2125/FUL. 5 24/1644/FUL. 6 21/3396/FUL. 7 21/5832/FUL. 8 19/0741/FUL.

I have also had regard to the appellant’s reference to communication with the Council, in addition to consistency issues with the officer report, but this has not led me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues of this appeal.

I am satisfied that the development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of adjoining residential occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance and would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, in addition to an acceptable effect on the housing mix and character of the area and car parking provision. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above in relation to the first main issue, the proposed rear extension would have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with regard to outlook. I therefore conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.