10-room large HMO at 48 Hallmead Road, Sutton

What was proposed

The application sought to change a six-person small HMO into a ten-person large HMO using existing rooms and existing refuse and cycle stores.

“The application seeks planning permission for the Change of use from Class C4 (Small House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO)) to Class Sui Generis (Large HMO) to provide 10 rooms and provision of refuse and cycle stores.”

“This application proposes the change of use from Class C4 (Small HMO) to Class Sui Generis (Large HMO) to provide 10 rooms and provision of refuse and cycle stores. This application proposes to use existing rooms within the property as bedrooms, increasing the occupancy by 4 people, creating a 10 person large HMO.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The property is an extended two-storey semi-detached building with a rear garden and front driveway in a mainly residential area.

“The application site is located on the eastern side of Hallmead Road, the application property is a two storey semi-detached building that has been extended and has lawful use as a small House of Multiple Occupation (up to 6 people). The property has a private rear garden and a driveway to the front.”

“The surrounding area is predominantly residential, comprising mainly terraced and semi-detached two storey dwellings. To the west of the site is a public footpath, Coombe Walk.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered the extension and small HMO use, while two later large HMO applications were refused before this submission included parking survey information.

“DM2025/01482 - Change of Use from Class C4 (6-bedroom HMO) to Class Sui Generis (10-bedroom HMO) and provision of refuse and cycle stores. Refused on 26.01.2026 for the following reason only: The applicant has failed to provide a Parking Stress Survey (Lambeth Methodology) to demonstrate that the proposed development, which provides no additional off-street parking, would not result in an unacceptable increase in on-street parking demand.”

“This application is identical to that of DM2025/01482, however this submission is supported by parking survey information.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the use was acceptable in principle and they found no unacceptable effects on neighbours, highways, future occupiers, trees or landscaping.

“The proposed change of use would be from a small HMO (Class C4) to a Large HMO (Sui Generis) representing an increase in occupancy, therefore the use of this property as an HMO is acceptable in principle in land use terms and would remain residential.”

“The proposed development would not give rise to an unacceptable loss of amenity to the occupiers of neighbouring properties in terms of loss of outlook, privacy or daylight, noise and disturbance.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Sixteen objection letters, a petition from 30 households and a councillor referral raised concerns about character, noise, waste, parking, highways and HMO concentration.

“A total of 16 objection letters from 14 Households and a petition signed by 30 households has been received. The addresses are listed in Appendix C and are available to view in Report Page 3”

“Parking and Highways ○ Increase in parking pressure and highways safety concerns…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, the ward councillor and the applicant addressed the committee about resident concerns, parking, amenity, affordability, policy compliance and proposed car-free measures.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned the intensification, parking controls and noise effects, particularly because the communal area adjoined a neighbouring property.

“Planning Committee 5 August 2026 9 confirmed that the communal area was adjacent to a neighbouring property, noting their understanding that the adjoining space was a living area.”

“In debate, the committee expressed significant concerns regarding the intensification of the semi-detached property, which is out of character with the surrounding area of smaller family homes. Members questioned the adequacy of the parking mitigation measures, arguing that proposed tenancy clauses were unenforceable and failed to address the significant parking pressure on the road and surrounding roads.”

Minutes

The votes

Members unanimously voted against the officer recommendation and unanimously agreed an alternative motion to refuse permission.

“DM2026/00287 - 48 Hallmead Road, Sutton SM1 1RD (Committee Report) A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted. Councillor Jayne McCoy Against Councillor Chandra Alapati Against Councillor James Appleby Against Councillor Rukhsar Askari Against Councillor Sunil Kumar Against Councillor Cumar Sahathevan Against Councillor Naveen Samrat Against Councillor Alison Long Against Councillor Trish Fivey Against…”

“Planning Committee 5 August 2026 10 An alternative motion was proposed by Councillor Trish Fivey and seconded by Councillor Naveen Samrat to refuse planning permission for the following headline reasons:”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused because parking pressures were not adequately mitigated and the intensified use would have an unacceptable effect on residential amenity through noise and disturbance.

“Parking pressures are not adequate mitigated • Unacceptable impact on residential amenity particularly noise and disturbance due to the Intensification of a semi-detached property…”

Minutes