8-bed HMO conversion at 43 Woodgrange Drive, Southend-on-Sea

What was proposed

The application sought to convert a dwelling into an eight-bedroom, eight-person HMO with rear and roof extensions and external storage.

“Through this application the Local Planning Authority’s (LPA) planning permission was sought to change use of the building from a single family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to an eight-bedroom, eight person House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) (sui generis).”

“The submitted site plans include elevations of external bike and bin stores but do not show their positions. However, there is sufficient space to accommodate these facilities to the rear of the site, as shown in previous applications. The bike store would be some 4m wide, 2.5m deep and a maximum of some 2m high finished in timber. The bin store would be some 2m wide, 0.8m deep and 1.2m high.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is a two-storey mid-terraced dwelling in a residential area, with front parking and an existing vehicle crossover.

“The application site contains a two-storey, mid-terraced dwelling on the northern side of Woodgrange Drive. The surrounding area is residential in character. The building has a two- storey rear outrigger similar to other buildings in the surrounding area. The frontage is a hard surfaced parking area with an existing vehicle crossover onto Woodgrange Drive.”

“The site is not within a conservation area or subject to any site-specific planning policy designations.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and appeals

Earlier decisions established lawful six-person HMO options, permission for a seven-person HMO and permission for the rear extension.

“[Officer comment:] The appeal decision is appended to this report as Appendix 1. The appeal decision which found the above reason was not sufficient to refuse the application and allowed the proposal holds significant weight in the assessment of this application. This is because of the similarities between the development within the 2025 Permission and the current proposal.”

“- 26/00530/FULH (the “2026 Extension Permission”) - Demolish existing rear ground floor bay window, erect single storey rear extension with roof lantern – Approved.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because of the accommodation, amenity, design and highway assessments and the available fallback positions.

“Highways have raised no objection noting that future occupiers will not be eligible for a town centre or residential parking permit. The proposal is not considered to be detrimental to highway safety or to the local highway network. The development would not have a significantly harmful impact on local parking conditions and would not be in the realms of a severe transport impact referred to in the NPPF.”

“For the reason outlined above, the proposal is found to be acceptable and compliant with the relevant planning policies and guidance. The principle of the development is acceptable. The proposal would not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the site, the streetscene, the rear garden scene and the wider surrounding area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor M Dent addressed the committee about the application.

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission because of the bedroom 5 shower-room arrangement, HMO concentration and likely parking pressure.

“The proposed internal layout of the development would result in Bedroom 5 being located inconveniently a floor away from its shower room facilities which would result in unacceptable living conditions for its future occupiers and a sub- standard form of accommodation. This is unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM1, DM3 and DM8 of Development Management Document (2015).”

“The proposal has failed to demonstrate that the intensified use of the property would not result in unacceptable impacts on parking conditions within the surrounding area. Given the limited parking availability on the local highway network and the increased demand generated by the proposed HMO occupation, the development would likely exacerbate on-street parking stress and cause inconvenience to existing surrounding residents.”

Minutes