Six-person house in multiple occupation at 58 York Avenue, Gillingham

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Medway Planning Committee on 3 Jun 2026.

MC/26/0221Refused

What was proposed

The application proposed a six-bedroom, six-person house in multiple occupation, with rear and roof extensions and bin and cycle storage.

“This application seeks planning permission for the change of use from dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a 6 bedroom 6 person house in multiple occupation (Class C4) together with construction of a single storey rear extension, L-shaped dormer window to rear and installation of roof lights to front to provide additional living accommodation within roof space with associated bin/cycle store within the garden area.”

“Ground Floor – Kitchen dining area and two bedrooms with ensuites. First Floor Plan - 2 bedrooms with ensuites Second floor - 2 bedrooms with ensuites There is also a garden to the rear.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal provided no adequate communal lounge or living space for six residents.

“_______________________________________________________ Recommendation of Officers to the Planning Committee, to be considered and determined by the Planning Committee at a meeting to be held on 6th May 2026.”

“The proposal only provides for a kitchen and small eating area as internal communal space, which is also used to provide access to the rear amenity space the arrangement which would reduce the meaningful space to support the day-to-day activities of the six individuals living together other than cooking. With no other communal spaces/lounges within the property this would result in the occupiers being reliant on living, relaxing, working from their bedrooms.”

Officer report

The main living-space problem

The ten-square-metre kitchen and dining area would also be a route to the garden, leaving residents reliant on their bedrooms for living, relaxing and working.

“There is one kitchen/diner area at ground floor which is proposed to provide the only internal communal space for use by the occupants. It is considered that while the bedrooms are reasonable offering occupants a degree of independent living within their rooms, the kitchen and dining area would measure only ten sqm and would not provide any real communal lounge area/facility.”

“Policy T8 clearly sets out that equivalent space to a reception room is necessary to accord with the Policy. The Policy also states that HMO accommodation will only be supported where it does not adversely affect the health and well-being of the residents (new and existing). The communal area is not two separate rooms and does not provide adequate communal space for six residents for living and dining, as set out in emerging plan Policy T8.”

Officer report

Objections and consultation responses

One objection questioned the planning statement, room layout and bus routes, while Kent Police requested crime-prevention consultation.

“The Planning statement refers to Mansfield! Internal layout shows eight ensuite rooms which is different from the proposal. There are no bus routes on York Avenue…”

“Kent Police commented on the application requesting they are consulted as Designing out Crime Officers (DOCO’s) to address CPTED and incorporate Secured by Design (SBD) as appropriate.”

Officer report

Committee discussion

Members discussed the application and expressed concern about the insufficient communal and living space.

“The Senior Planner confirmed, that within a 500-metre radius, there were 42 HMOs in the area. The officer’s recommendation for refusal remained, based on the inadequate provision of internal communal space.”

“The Committee discussed the application in detail and Members expressed concern regarding the insufficient communal and living space.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application for the first reason in the report after the second reason was withdrawn.

“The Senior Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet, which confirmed that the SAMMS Bird Fee had now been paid. As a result, the second reason for refusal had been withdrawn.”

“REFUSED for reason 1 only as set out in the report.”

Minutes

Sources

  • Medway Planning Committee minutes, 3 June 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Medway's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Council
Medway
Date
Wednesday 3 June 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended refusal
Committee decided
Refused
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)

This committee's year

57 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 5 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →