- Decision
- dismissed, 2 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: L Fern
- Authority
- Barking and Dagenham (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6009965
- Application reference
- 26/00134/FULL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of a dwelling (Class C3) to a 3-bedroom house in multiple occupation (Class C4) for up to four occupants
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(1), TR3, P3
- Development plan policies
- Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2024 SP3, DMH5, DMT1, DMT2, London Plan 2021 H9, T4, D6, T1, T6, T6.1
- Main issues
- location and loss of a family dwelling; living conditions; car parking
Summary
Change of use of a family house in Barking to a small house in multiple occupation (HMO) for up to four people. The inspector found the loss of a family home unjustified, the location poorly served by public transport for London (Public Transport Accessibility Level 0), and two bedrooms below the space standards. Parking was adequate. Under S4 the adverse effects substantially outweighed any benefits. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. A revised Framework "replaces previous iterations and the contents of which have been considered in the determination of this appeal" (DL ¶2).
- Loss of a family home: CONFLICT. "the removal of a single-family home from the existing housing stock in a location where there is a need for such accommodation would be harmful" (DL ¶5). The local policies "are broadly consistent with Framework policies relating to the delivery of a sufficient supply of homes" (DL ¶4).
- Accessibility, TR3: CONFLICT (local policies). "although the appeal site is located only approximately 0.4 miles from the nearest high frequency service bus stops on Longbridge Road, this is a significant distance in this London context" (DL ¶7). "it is likely that future residents would rely on use of a private car to undertake at least some of their day-to-day needs" (DL ¶7).
- Living conditions: CONFLICT. "there are two very small bedrooms that fall below the requisite … floorspace requirements" (DL ¶11; the … marks a page break).
- Parking: PASS. The proposal "would provide 3 car parking spaces and would therefore be unlikely to create a significant demand for on-street car parking" (DL ¶15).
Planning balance
S4(1). "In this case, given the conflict with Framework policies relating to the sufficient supply of homes and living conditions, the adverse effects would substantially outweigh any benefits of approving the scheme" (DL ¶17). The Framework policies are not named. The letter treats the loss of a family dwelling as a conflict with the Framework's housing-supply policies, which is a use of those policies as a harm.
What made the difference
The local plan's priority for family housing, with no evidence of need for an HMO, and two bedrooms measurably below the standard. The accessibility finding added to it: in London terms, a 0.4 mile walk to a frequent bus and a rating of 0 was a poor location.
Transferable points
- Accessibility is judged in context: 0.4 miles to a high-frequency bus stop is "a significant distance in this London context" (DL ¶7).
- A Public Transport Accessibility Level score is used as evidence of poor connectivity in London, in the way the Connectivity Tool is used elsewhere (DL ¶7).
- An HMO licence does not settle planning acceptability (DL ¶5).
- Loss of a family dwelling was treated as conflicting with the Framework's housing-supply policies as well as the local plan (DL ¶4, ¶17).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S4(1) | fail | site within a settlement so S4 engaged; "given the conflict with Framework policies relating to the sufficient supply of homes and living conditions, the adverse effects would substantially outweigh any benefits"; no presumption under S3 (DL 17) | |
| HO7 | conflict | mapped: letter refers to "Framework policies relating to the delivery of a sufficient supply of homes" without naming one; loss of a single-family home where family housing is the priority need, and no evidence of need for an HMO (DL 4-5, 17) | |
| TR3 | conflict | TR3 paraphrased and local T4 and DMT1 found broadly consistent with it; PTAL 0 (very poor); nearest high-frequency bus stops about 0.4 miles away, "a significant distance in this London context"; residents likely to rely on a car for some day-to-day needs; conflict found under the local policies and not carried into the S4 sentence (DL 6-8, 17) | |
| P3 | conflict | mapped: letter refers to "Framework policies that seek to ensure proposals provide healthy living conditions"; Bedroom 01 at 7.415 sq m and Bedroom 03 at 6.769 sq m fall below London Plan D6 7.5 sq m and East London HMO Guidance 8.5 sq m (DL 10-12) | |
| TR2 | pass | mapped: driveway for two cars and a retained garage give 3 spaces against a worst case of 4; Controlled Parking Zone; local parking policies found broadly consistent with Framework transport policies (DL 13-16) | |
| Transitional(2) | accord | local housing, transport, living-standards and parking policies each found "broadly consistent" with the Framework; Annex A not cited (DL 4, 6, 10, 13) |
Key facts
- Public Transport Accessibility Level 0; 0.4 miles to high-frequency bus stops on Longbridge Road; Upney underground station considerably further (DL 7)
- Evidence "notably deficient" on the nearest shops, services and facilities (DL 7)
- An HMO licence had been issued; licensing does not make the use acceptable in planning terms (DL 5)
- No irreversible alterations, but removing a family home is harmful regardless of how long the HMO operates (DL 5)
- Switch paragraph says only that the contents of the revised Framework "have been considered" (DL 2)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.