Seven-person HMO at 15 Paget Street, Gillingham

What was proposed

The application sought to change a dwelling into a seven-bedroom, seven-person house in multiple occupation, with associated accommodation and facilities.

“This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of an existing Class C3 dwelling into a seven-bedroom, seven-person Sui Generis House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).”

“At lower-ground floor - open plan kitchen dining area; Ground floor - three ensuite bedrooms, bathroom, and utility room; First Floor - two ensuite bedrooms, an off-suite bedroom, and study; and; Roof space - an ensuite bedroom.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The property is a large urban dwelling in a tightly knit residential area, with residential plots around it and a deep rear garden.

“With the property itself located a few dwellings in from the junction between Paget Street and Saxon Street. The application site is bound on all sided by residential plots, with the eastern perimeter being enclosed by the dwellings along Saxon Street; and the south and west forming of rear gardens.”

“Looking at the immediate area as a whole, it is formed of a tightly knit urban grain, predominantly in residential use; with some more commercial uses at ground-floor level located approximately 160m to the east along Canterbury Street.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions and refusals covered a six-person HMO, nine-person HMO and eight-person HMO at the property.

“MC/25/1243 Application for a Lawful Development Certificate (proposed) change of use of class (C3) dwelling house to class (C4) up to a 6 bed HMO. Construction of a dormer to rear to facilitate living accommodation within the roof space. Construction of a single storey extension to side/ rear and an extension to rear along with a single storey outbuilding to rear garden Decision: Approval Decided: 12.08.2025”

“MC/26/0323 Change of use of existing dwelling (Class C3) to a eight person house in multiple occupation (Sui Generis) together with construction of two single storey rear extensions and a dormer window to rear to provide additional living accommodation within roof space with associated external alterations and bin/cycle storage and a detached outbuilding to rear Decision: Refusal Decided: 05.06.2026”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered there was no HMO overconcentration and the proposal would provide good living conditions without harming neighbours.

“It is considered that there is no over concentration of HMOs in the area and the proposal has been designed to provide a good level of amenity for prospective occupiers without harming the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers.”

“The proposal complies with the provisions set out in paragraphs 11, 61, 115, 116, 131, 135, 135(f), 194 and 195 of the NPPF, Policies BNE1, BNE2, BNE35, H7, S1, S6, T1 and T13 of the Local Plan and Policy T8 of the emerging Plan. The application is therefore recommended for approval.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Two objections raised concerns about residential character, amenity, parking, highways, refuse, cumulative HMO impacts and the property’s suitability.

“Two letters of objection have been received on the following grounds: Proposal conflicts with Policy H7 of the Local Plan, as the property is not detached, nor are there non-residential uses within the surrounding area Proposal would undermine the existing residential character of the area Increased occupancy would result in harm to the existing conditions of amenity Supporting documentation is insufficient to overcome intrinsic harm of the proposed change of use There are…”

“Cllr Dan McDonlad has objected to the proposal on the grounds of: Increased parking pressures Erosion of the existing residential character of the area Loss of privacy and overlooking Structural concerns regarding the existing property Overdevelopment of the site Increased levels of noise and disturbance…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Senior Planner presented the application, and the ward councillor spoke against it with concerns about cumulative impact, parking and suitability.

The vote

The committee voted against the officers’ recommendation to approve the application and then considered reasons for refusal.

“The Committee then voted on the officers’ recommendation to approve the planning application, which was lost. Members then considered reasons for refusal and expressed concerns regarding the intensified use of the property, including increased comings and goings associated with a large HMO, together with the loss of a family home with the area.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because its scale and intensity would harm neighbouring residential amenity and it lacked required habitat mitigation information or contribution.

“Refused on the grounds of the scale and intensity of the proposed use, together with the site's location within a closely-knit residential terrace with shared party walls, the proposal would result in increased noise, disturbance, comings and goings and general activity that would erode the existing conditions of adjoining residential amenity and nearby occupiers.”

“The application failed 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.”

Minutes