A short term let in Mill Hill has lost its appeal despite an Inspector ruling that the proposed self-catering accommodation did not have to pass a town centre sequential test. On 19th October 2026, Inspector P B Jarvis dismissed appeal 6006979 against Barnet Council’s refusal of planning permission for 3A Newcombe Park.
The appeal concerned a three-bedroom flat on the upper floors of a large semi-detached property. It had been operated as short stay self-catering accommodation since 2024, and the applicant wanted planning permission for that use rather than continued occupation as a permanent home.
I think the important point is that the short term let did not fail every planning test. The Inspector disagreed with the council on the sequential test and found no compelling evidence of unacceptable disturbance to neighbours. However, the loss of a three-bedroom family home conflicted with the adopted housing policies, and those policies proved decisive.
Why the short term let did not need a sequential test
Barnet argued that the change should be treated as tourism accommodation and therefore subject to the town-centre-first approach. The London Plan, the Barnet Local Plan and national planning policy all contain provisions aimed at steering defined main town centre uses towards appropriate centres.
The Inspector examined what the proposed use actually involved. This was a self-contained flat where visitors would cater for themselves. It was not a hotel, hostel or guest house providing the services normally associated with those categories. The council acknowledged the absence of catering and comparable guest services.
He therefore found that the short term let did not fall within the relevant definition of a main town centre use requiring a sequential test. Providing somewhere for tourists to sleep is not, by itself, proof that the premises should be assessed in the same way as a hotel.
That distinction is useful well beyond Barnet, but it is not a free pass for holiday accommodation. A different development offering services, a larger visitor complex or a different site context could need a different assessment. The planning description and the actual operational characteristics remain important. Our town centre sequential test guide explains the wider policy approach.
The three-bedroom family home was the sticking point
Barnet’s adopted 2025 Local Plan seeks to protect its housing stock and identifies demand for homes with three or more bedrooms. Policy HOU05 generally resists permanent conversion to short stay holiday rental accommodation used for more than 90 days a year, subject to limited exceptions.
The appellant argued that the flat remained physically intact and could readily revert to ordinary residential use. The Inspector rejected the suggestion that this meant no housing would be lost. Planning permission for the requested change of use would allow the accommodation to operate as a short term let rather than contribute as a normal dwelling.
This was not a hypothetical threat to supply. The applicant stated an intention to continue the existing short stay operation and produced evidence of its operation. The Inspector found that the appeal would therefore remove a three-bedroom home from the stock in the way the local policy was intended to prevent.
The available evidence did not demonstrate a compelling local need for more self-catering visitor accommodation capable of outweighing that conflict. By contrast, the identified need for larger homes attracted substantial weight. The decision turned on that balance, not on an assumption that every holiday guest would behave badly.
Neighbour disturbance and parking objections did not succeed
The council and local residents also raised concerns about noise, frequent arrivals and departures, parking and the residential character of the street. The Inspector considered the greater turnover of occupants but found that the number of people able to stay was not inherently greater than under permanent residential occupation.
People living permanently in a flat may also travel for work, education, shopping and leisure. The decision did not accept that short-term visitors would necessarily generate markedly greater movements or disturbance. The evidence also did not show unacceptable parking pressure or harmful concentrations of comparable accommodation nearby.
The Inspector found no compelling basis for concluding that the short term let would harm neighbours’ living conditions or the area’s residential character. This part of the appeal was favourable to the appellant, and it would misrepresent the decision to report it as a refusal caused by antisocial behaviour or parking.
Local amenity remains a material consideration in these cases. This decision simply shows that objections need credible evidence relating to the particular proposal, rather than assumptions about people staying for short periods.
The claimed fallback and the planning balance
A previous permission to combine the ground and first-floor accommodation into a single enlarged dwelling was raised by the appellant as a possible fallback comparison. However, that permission had expired. It could not be implemented and was given no material weight in the Inspector’s planning balance.
The fact that the flat had apparently been operated successfully did not settle the underlying planning question. Neither did the conclusion that neighbour harm was unlikely. The Inspector still had to weigh the conflict with London Plan policies D3 and H9 and Barnet policies HOU02 and HOU05.
He found that the development conflicted with the development plan overall and that the other considerations did not outweigh it. The result was dismissal of the appeal, notwithstanding the findings on the sequential test and neighbourhood amenity.
What owners and advisers should take from it
This short term let decision illustrates why different planning objections must be kept separate. A sequential test may not apply to a modest self-catering flat, but loss of residential accommodation can still provide an independent and substantial reason for refusal.
For anyone evaluating a proposed holiday let, the critical questions include the lawful starting use, whether planning permission is needed, the actual operating model, any policy protection for the existing home and whether credible local need evidence supports the change.
Inspectors’ decisions are fact-specific and not binding legal precedent. The decision is recorded in the Planning Inspectorate case record. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments