Five-person HMO at 53 Shakespeare Road, Gillingham

What was proposed

The application sought to convert a dwelling into a five-bedroom, five-person HMO, with larger roof lights and changes to the front boundary.

“Currently the property comprises: Basement: Storage Ground floor: Living/dining room, Kitchen and play/study room First floor: master bedroom, bathroom and family room Second floor: Bedroom with ensuite and wardrobe/study…”

“An increase in the size of the roof lights in the front elevation roof is proposed to add additional light and outlook to the bedroom.”

Officer report

The site and accommodation

The property would provide five ensuite bedrooms, communal areas and a garden, but no parking was proposed.

“The conversion is proposed to comprise: Basement: Communal living space/utility Ground Floor: 1X bedroom with ensuite shower room, kitchen/living/dining area. First Floor: 2X bedrooms with ensuite shower rooms. Second Floor/Loft: 2X bedrooms with ensuite shower rooms.”

“The property is proposed to accommodate up to 5 persons within 5 bedrooms.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered a rear dormer and extensions, and basement accommodation; an earlier HMO application was withdrawn.

“MC/25/2516 Application for a Lawful Development Certificate (Existing) for the construction of an L shaped dormer to rear with roof light to front to provide additional living accommodation within the roof space, erection of two single storey rear extensions - demolition of existing rear extension Approval with conditions 16 January 2026”

“MC/26/0054 Retrospective application for conversion of basement into habitable living accommodation together with refurbishment of existing lightwell Approval with conditions 11 March 2026”

Officer report

Consultation responses

No neighbour representations were received, while Kent Police welcomed further discussions about crime prevention and site security.

“The application has been advertised on site and by individual neighbour notification to the owners and occupiers of the neighbouring property.”

“Kent Police have welcomed further discussions with the applicant/agent about site specific designing out crime approaches and have provided additional advice with respect to lighting and natural surveillance, security and boundary treatments and other approaches that could be implemented within the development.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Senior Planner presented the application, and the ward councillor addressed the committee against it.

What members debated

Members debated HMO concentration, family housing, homelessness, bedroom standards, garden size, parking and possible noise and disturbance.

“The Senior Planner confirmed that the loft bedroom met the minimum size requirements for a single bedroom as set out in the Nationally Described Space Standards. A Member acknowledged that the applicant had amended the proposal in order to improve the living conditions for future residents.”

“The Service Manager - Development Management advised that the size of the garden, which was below the normal standard, would be unchanged regardless of whether the property was occupied as a family dwelling or as a HMO, and that gardens within Shakespeare Road were generally modest in size. He confirmed that the extension had been constructed under permitted development rights and was, therefore, not assessed with reference to planning policy.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted on the recommendation to approve, but that recommendation was lost.

“The Committee voted on the officers’ recommendation to approve the planning application, which was lost. Members then discussed potential reasons for refusal, including the loss of a family dwelling and the impact of intensified occupation on the character of the area.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because the property was considered suitable for a family and the intensified HMO use would harm neighbouring amenity.

“The application property was not considered too large to reasonably expect its occupation by a single family and, therefore, the loss of a dwelling that would be suitable as a single-family dwelling and was located in Gillingham South Ward, which was noted as already containing multiple HMOs, was, therefore, contrary to Policy H7 of the Medway Local Plan (2003) and Policy T8 of the Submitted (Regulation 22) Medway Local Plan 2041 (December 2025).”

“The change of use from a modest family dwelling to a 5-person HMO by reason of the scale and intensity of the proposed use 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.”

Minutes