# 217 Colney Hatch Lane, Barnet

- **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Ramsden
- **Authority:** Barnet (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007883
- **Application reference:** 25/5055/RCU
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retrospective change of use from 3-bed dwellinghouse (C3) to 4-person HMO (C4)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4(1)
- **Development plan policies:** Barnet Local Plan 2025 HOU02, HOU04, TRC03, London Plan 2021 H9, D3, T4, T6.1
- **Main issues:** housing mix, highway safety and parking
- **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, loss-of-family-housing, s4-substantially-outweighed, transitional-no-consultation, retrospective

## Summary
Retrospective C3→C4 HMO conversion of a three-bed house on a PTAL 2 main road was dismissed for conflict with Barnet's HMO-need and family-housing policies and unevidenced parking stress. The Inspector did not consult on the new Framework, saying the changes did "not affect the merits of this case in a material way" (DL ¶4).

## What made the difference
No evidence of HMO need and no Lambeth-method parking survey. The letter ends by running the S4 test in its own words, without naming the code: "any benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the revised Framework and the development does not benefit from the presumption" (DL ¶25). This is an example of the within-settlement presumption being lost on plan-policy conflict plus a parking-safety concern.

## Policy findings
- **Barnet LP HOU04: conflict.** no evidence of identified need for HMOs; PTAL 2 so not easily accessible (DL 9-13)
- **TR4: fail.** parking stress/pavement parking; no Lambeth-methodology survey (DL 16-23); decided under London Plan T4/T6.1 and LP TRC03
- **S4(1): fail.** "any benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the revised Framework" (DL 25)

## Key facts
- Loss of a 3-bed family house; Article 4 removes C3→C4 PD rights borough-wide
- PTAL 2; on dualled B550 near North Circular junction; no on-site parking
- Parking evidence 3 snapshots, not the Lambeth methodology

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b374a6fe-d5ba-48d9-a014-f3c1bfb24d9e
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007883

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007883.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.