Case Reference: 3246389

Appeal Decision
Site Visit made on 17 November 2020
by William Cooper BA (Hons) MA CMLI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 21st December 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/W/20/3246389
58 Sturgess Avenue, Hendon, London NW4 3TS
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as
amended against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of the Council
of the London Borough of Barnet.
• The application Ref 19/5426/FUL, dated 7 October 2019, was refused by notice dated
10 December 2019.
• The development proposed is change of use to a House in Multiple Occupation for no
more than six people.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use to a
House in Multiple Occupation for no more than six people at 58 Sturgess
Avenue, London, NW4 3TS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref:
19/5426/FUL, dated 7 October 2019, and the plans submitted with it, subject
to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: M/01/Rev 01 Location Plan; M/02 Existing
Floor Plans; M/03/Rev B Proposed Floor Plans; M/04 Existing & Proposed
Front and Side Elevations; M/05 Existing & Proposed Rear and Side
Elevations.
2) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years
from the date of this decision.
3) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
layout and proposed occupancy of a maximum number of six persons, and
maintained as such thereafter.
4) Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted, cycle parking
spaces shall be provided in accordance with London Plan cycle parking
standards and retained thereafter.
Preliminary Matters
2. Since the Council’s decision the appellant has submitted two revisions of
amended floor plan drawings with the appeal, the latest of which is revision B.
Compared to the application floor plans drawing, this reconfigures part of the
proposed ground floor and second floor rooms and kitchen space. I have had
regard to the Council’s comments on floor plans drawing Revision A, and by
comparison Revision B restores some of the ground floor dining space. No third
party objections to the planning application were received to the original
proposal. Furthermore, the revisions do not change the external footprint or
fenestration of the building, or the proposed number of units. As such, the floor
plans layout Revision B is sufficiently unchanged, compared to the previous
versions, that no interests would be prejudiced by my consideration of the floor
plans of the proposal to be as illustrated in revised drawing M/03/Rev B.
Main Issues
3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on:
• the housing mix and character of the area
• the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to
congestion, noise and disturbance, and
• the living conditions of future occupiers, with particular regard to internal
living space and access to outdoor amenity space.
Reasons
Housing mix and character of the area
4. The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached house and its garden
areas. The property is located in a mainly residential area which is
characterised by two-storey pairs of semi-detached dwellings. It is one of a
cluster of semi-detached dwellings set around three sides of an approximately
square-shaped space that contains permit-parking spaces. The site is a short
walk from Brent Cross Shopping Centre.
5. Policies DM08 and DM09 of Barnet’s Development Management Policies (DMP)
together seek a diverse housing mix, informed by robust local housing needs
evidence. While Policy DM08 of the DMP prioritises three and four bedroom
homes in the borough, it seeks a variety of sizes of new homes to meet
housing need and does not automatically preclude other sizes. Policy DM09 of
the DMP sets out criteria under which new Houses in Multiple Occupation
(HMOs) would be encouraged. These criteria comprise meeting an identified
need, avoiding harm to the character and amenities of the area, accessibility to
transport alternatives to the private car, and meeting relevant HMO housing
standards. Policy DM09 of the DMP does not explicitly state the type of HMO
need evidence required. Policy CS5 of Barnet’s Core Strategy (CS) expands on
a spectrum of character considerations from townscape characteristics to
community inclusion and cohesion.
6. The proposed change of use would reduce by one the number of dwellings
potentially available for single-family occupation in Barnet. The Council
considers that there is a lack of statistically-based housing need justification for
the proposal.
7. However, various HMOs are located in the area around the appeal property, as
shown on the Council’s HMO database. Furthermore, the rental of eight self-
contained units in the building, which has apparently taken place over a
number of years, suggests a demand for HMO accommodation. This is within
the context of identification of HMOs as a strategically important housing
resource in London which provides flexible and relatively affordable
accommodation, in the Mayor of London’s Housing Supplementary Planning
Guidance (2016) (MHG). In the light of the above combination of factors, and
in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I find that the proposal
would meet an identified HMO need.
8. From what I saw during my site visit, albeit a snapshot in time, the area has a
suburban, residential character. The appeal building blends acceptably into the
streetscene which is characterised by semi-detached dwellings of similar
appearance.
9. The Council is concerned that the proposal would lead to a harmful change of
function and intensification of use of the property. Compared to a single-family
home, residents in a HMO are likely to be more independent of each other in
their comings and goings, and may well generate a greater turnover of
occupancy. However, given the en-suite rooms on the first and second floors,
including one room with a large rear dormer, and the ground floor space it is
feasible that the building could accommodate between five and six people as a
single-family dwelling. The proposed maximum of six HMO residents would be
a similar number. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence before me that
the rental of eight self-contained units in the building over a number of years
has resulted in a track record of noise and disturbance nuisance arising from
home delivery or refuse collection, for example.
10. Therefore, compared to the more recent use of the property or a family home,
it is unlikely that the proposal would noticeably increase comings and goings to
a degree that would significantly change the character of the street. Nor would
the external appearance of the building change so as to alter the prevailing
suburban residential character of the area.
11. The site is a short walk from Brent Cross shopping centre and bus interchange
Hendon Central tube station and Hendon railway station. Therefore,
notwithstanding the low PTAL rating, future occupiers of the proposed HMO
would have realistic, accessible transport alternatives to the private car. Future
occupiers are also likely to provide custom for the above facilities and services,
thus contributing, on a modest scale, towards sustaining the area’s amenities.
12. As such, the proposal would satisfy the criteria in Policy DM09 of the DMP to
support provision of the HMO. In so doing, it would not harm the character of
the area and thus in this respect would not conflict with Policies CS1 and CS5
of the CS, Policy DM01 of the DMP and the Barnet Residential Design Guidance
Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (RDG) which together seek to
ensure that, among other things, development complements local character. In
conclusion, the proposal would not harm the housing mix or character of the
area. In these respects, it would not conflict with the relevant development
plan policies cited above.
Living conditions of neighbouring occupiers
13. The square in front of the appeal property comprises bays for resident permit
parking. During my visit on a weekday, albeit a snapshot in time, the bays
were mainly empty and Sturgess Avenue had relatively light traffic levels.
Furthermore, future occupiers of the proposed HMO would have realistic
transport alternatives to the private car, as described above. Therefore, even
though the parking bays in the square in front of the appeal building would be
more fully occupied during evenings and weekends, the proposal is unlikely to
result in significant traffic congestion in the locality.
14. The square around which the host row and neighbouring rows of dwellings are
set is spacious and opens out onto Sturgess Avenue. The openness of this part
of the streetscape would help to dilute noise within the immediate square.
Moreover, for reasons described above, it is anticipated that the volume of
comings and goings associated with up to six future HMO residents would not
be excessive within the suburban context. Transport alternatives to car use
would reduce the risk of vehicular disturbance.
15. The above combination of factors leads me to conclude that the proposal would
not harm neighbours’ living conditions with regard to congestion, noise and
disturbance. As such, it would not conflict with Policies CS1 and CS5 of the CS
and Policies DM01, DM02 and DM04 of the DMP which together seek a well-
designed, quality environment that safeguards residents’ living conditions.
Living conditions of future occupiers
16. The proposed layout would provide two kitchen areas, one on the ground floor
and one on the second floor, between a maximum of six residents. Thus, the
proposal would provide access to kitchen facilities separate from and not more
than one floor distant from the sleeping rooms of the units.
17. The rear garden of the property comprises soft and hard landscaping and
provides a usable outdoor amenity space for residents. Two of the ground floor
units would have direct access to the garden. The access from the other units
would be via the front door and the short pathway down the side of the
building. In totality, this layout would provide reasonable access for occupiers
of all the units in the proposed HMO to the rear garden space. Beyond the HMO
standard requirements, the nearby Sturgess Park ‘pocket park’ also offers
residents further opportunity for outdoor recreation and exercise.
18. The Council has expressed concern that one of the rooms would not meet the
minimum floor area requirement of 8.5sq.m1. However, judging by the
proposed layout plan drawing, the rooms would meet this requirement.
19. Consequently, the proposal would meet the relevant practicable HMO housing
standards in the SHMO and RDG, compliance with which is sought by the
guidance in paragraph 3.5.1 of the MHG. In conclusion, the proposal would not
harm the living conditions of future occupiers in respect of internal living space
and access to outdoor amenity space. As such, it would not conflict with Policy
CS5 of the CS and Policy DM09 of the DMP, which together seek a well-
designed environment that safeguards residents’ living conditions.
Conditions
20. The conditions suggested by the Council have been considered against the
tests of the Framework and advice provided by Planning Practice Guidance. I
have found them to be broadly reasonable and necessary in the circumstances
of this case. I have made some minor drafting changes to suggested conditions
in the interests of precision. A condition relating to cycle parking is necessary in
the interests of sustainable transport. A condition covering maximum number
of occupants is required to safeguard future occupiers’ living conditions.
1 As per the Council’s Standards for Houses in Multiple Occupations (2016) (SHMO).
Conclusion
21. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed
William Cooper
INSPECTOR