Six-person HMO conversion at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, London SE18

What was proposed

The application sought a six-person HMO, loft conversion, rear dormer, rear extension, cycle storage, refuse storage and associated alterations.

“Planning permission is sought for the change of use from existing single- family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a 6-bed, 6-person HMO (Use Class C4), in addition to a loft conversion and construction of a L-shaped rear dormer, single storey rear extension, cycle and refuse storage and all other associated alterations.”

“An L-shaped rear dormer is proposed on the existing roofscape. The proposed rear dormer on the existing roofscape would have an approximate depth of 3.55m, full width of 4.20m and eaves height of 2.47m. Part of the rear dormer on the L-shaped two-storey rear outrigger would have an approximate depth of 3.33m, width of 2.33m and eaves height of 3.47. This would feature two rear facing openings and serve bedroom 6.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a two-storey terraced dwelling in a mainly residential area of terraced homes, with a rear garden and no conservation or listed-building designation.

“The site is located on the northern side of Melling Street and contains an existing two-storey terraced dwelling, with a small front garden and a rear garden.”

“The application site is not located within a Conservation Area and does not relate to a listed building. No relevant Article 4 Directions are applicable to the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A 2025 certificate approved the proposed L-shaped dormer, while a 1991 permission approved a loft conversion and dormer.

“App Number: 25/2194/CP Decision: Approved Decision Date: 29/08/2025 Address: 6 MELLING STREET, PLUMSTEAD, LONDON, SE18 2EG Description: Certificate of Lawfulness (Proposed) is sought for the L-shaped dormer extension with front roof lights…”

“App Number: 90/1014/F Decision: Approved Decision Date: 02/05/1991 Address: 6 Melling Street SE18 Description: Loft conversion and erection of dormer.”

Officer report

Questions and explanations

The agent confirmed the ground floor would be level throughout, while planning officers explained the management plan, fallback dormer and rear-facing windows.

What members debated

Members questioned parking demand, small bedrooms, management, overlooking, enclosure, overdevelopment and disturbance from six unrelated occupants.

“In determining the application, a Member remained concerned that the traffic survey considered a private road, as part of the available parking and expressed concern about the very high reported parking demand. They noted that several bedroom sizes, while policy-compliant, were very small.”

“Page No. 3 A Members expressed concern as to whether overlooking to the neighbours’ properties had been adequately considered, given the tight arrangement. Further, while the property was currently a family home, as an HMO the rear of the house could experience more activity due to the dormer and use of rear space by up to six independent adults with different patterns of use, movement and activity, potentially increasing disturbance and overlooking impacts compared to a…”

Minutes

The committee vote

The recommendation to grant permission received no votes in favour, two votes against and two abstentions.

“The Chair put the recommendation to grant planning consent to the vote with…”

“Page No. 4 0 Members in favour 2 Members against 2 Members abstaining.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the committee considered noise and disturbance from the HMO harmful to neighbouring properties’ amenity.

“Members confirmed that, in this case that they conspired a 6 bed HMO unacceptable in this terraced location and that it would create an unacceptable sense of enclosure and overdevelopment creating an unacceptable level of harm to and the disturbance from six unrelated occupants and increased comings and goings would create an unacceptable impact on the existing residential amenity peaceable habitation of their home .”

“That the for the change of use from existing single-family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a 6-bed, 6-person HMO (Use Class C4) be refused on the grounds of the harmful impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties through noise and disturbance from the HMO.”

Minutes