Six-person HMO conversion at 49 Priestfield Road, Gillingham

What was proposed

The application sought a six-person HMO from a six-bedroom house, with a loft conversion, dormer and rooflights.

“Proposal: Change of use of six bed house to six person HMO (C4); loft conversion with dormer with 1 rooflight to the rear and 3 roof light to the front…”

“This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of six bed house to six person HMO (C4) loft conversion with dormer with 1 rooflight to the rear and 3 roof light to the front.”

Officer report

The site and accommodation

The proposed accommodation included six ensuite bedrooms, a shared kitchen and dining area, communal garden, refuse storage and cycle parking.

“Ground Floor – 2no bedrooms each with an ensuite, communal area consisting of kitchen/dining area. First Floor – 3no bedrooms each with an ensuite. Second Floor – 1 bedroom with an ensuite.”

“Externally there is a communal garden area with refuse and cycle parking.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the proposal would remove family accommodation, increase HMO concentration and fail to address required protection for nearby special protection areas.

“The proposed development would result in the loss of a single-family dwellinghouse and its conversion to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) within an area where there is already a significant concentration of HMOs. The proposal would therefore contribute to an overconcentration of such uses, resulting in an overprovision of HMOs and an unacceptable imbalance in the local housing stock through the loss of family accommodation.”

“The application fails to address the impact of the proposal on the Special Protection Areas of the Thames Estuary and Marshes and the Medway Estuary and Marshes through either the submission of details to allow the undertaking of an Appropriate Assessment or via a contribution towards strategic mitigation measures.”

Officer report

The main planning concern

The area already had many HMOs, and officers considered the additional shared accommodation would worsen the balance of local housing.

“Greater weight is therefore afforded to Policy T8 of the Emerging Medway Local Plan, which specifically seeks to manage the distribution of HMOs across Medway and prevent harmful concentrations of such accommodation.”

“While HMOs can provide an important form of accommodation, it is considered that, in this instance, the benefits of the proposal are outweighed by the cumulative impact on the balance of housing provision within the area. The development would conflict with the objectives of Policy T8 of the Emerging Medway Local Plan, which seeks to prevent overprovision of HMOs and safeguard family accommodation. Consequently, the principle of the development is considered unacceptable.”

Officer report

Objections and consultation

Five objections and a petition raised concerns about noise, security, parking, waste, local character, inaccurate documents and the cumulative effect of HMOs.

“Impact on amenity of existing neighbours Increased noise and disturbance from the proposed increase of residents. Inaccuracies in the submitted documents including but limited to a hedge being removed on site. Concerns in relation to security Impact on parking and highways to the existing area. Cumulative impact of HMO’s as there are already many on the street. Waste management concerns Character of the area will be impacted and no longer residential in nature.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

Councillor Coombs spoke as ward councillor and raised concerns about HMO concentration, family housing, parking, opposition and refuse storage.

The committee discussion

Members were told that the recommendation was refusal and that the applicant had not paid the required mitigation contribution.

“The Senior Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet, which clarified that the recommendation should be a refusal rather than approval, as stated in the report.”

“The Service Manager - Development Management confirmed that the applicant had not yet paid the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) mitigation contribution referred to in the report.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application for both reasons set out in the report.

“Refused for the reasons 1 and 2 as set out in the report.”

Minutes