Six-person HMO at 61 Shooters Hill, Plumstead, London SE18

What was proposed

The application sought a six-person HMO from a family dwelling, with a rear extension, dormer, six bedrooms, cycle storage and refuse storage.

“Planning permission is sought for a change of use from a single-family dwelling (Use Class C3) to a small House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) for a maximum of 6 persons across 6 bedrooms. The proposal includes a single storey rear extension. There would be provision of cycle and waste storages and rear dormer extension with front roof lights approved under ref 25/3887/CP”

“At ground floor level, a single-storey rear extension is proposed that would project 3m beyond the existing rear wall and would have a height of 3m. A single storey rear extension would project 3 metres from the rear wall of the outrigger at a height of 3 metres. The ground floor of the building would consist of two bedrooms (both with en-suite bathrooms and 1 person occupancy) and a communal kitchen/dining room.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey mid-terraced house in a mainly residential area, opposite a primary school and a church.

“The application site is located on the northern side of Shooters Hill and comprises a two-storey mid-terraced dwelling. The dwelling benefits from a single storey conservatory to the rear.”

“The surrounding area is residential in character mainly consisting of 2 storey dwellings of a similar appearance to the application site. Christ Church of England Primary School and Christ Church are found opposite the site on the other side of Shooters Hill. The application site is not within a Conservation Area, however Woolwich Common Conservation Area is found to the west of the Application site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A certificate of lawfulness for the rear roof extension and front roof lights was approved, while an earlier application was withdrawn.

“Application ref: Description: Decision: 25/3887/CP Certificate of Lawfulness (Proposed) is sought for rear roof extension with front roof lights…”

“Approved 14/01/2026 25/3902/CP Certificate of Lawfulness (Proposed) is sought for rear roof extension with front roof lights.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Fifty-eight objections raised concerns about parking, highways, neighbour amenity, HMO concentration, waste, design, room sizes and consultation.

“At the time of writing this report, fifty-eight (58) objections have been received in relation to the proposed development. A summary of the neighbour objections received at the time of writing is provided below:”

“These matters are assessed within the parking and highways section of the report. Impact on neighbouring amenity: • Insufficient daylight/sunlight • Inadequate light and outlook • Increase noise and disturbance and odour concerns • Loss of privacy…”

Officer report

Other concerns

A ward councillor objected over the loss of a family home, noise, parking, neighbour privacy and consultation, while transport bodies raised no objection.

“Two ward councillors were originally consulted on 08/12/2025, with Councillor Tamasin Rhymes raising an objection. The objection is outlined and addressed below:”

“Summary of Comments Officer comments • Loss of a family home The principle of a HMO is considered in section 9 of the report.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A councillor and a local resident spoke against the application, while the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

What members discussed

Members discussed possible existing HMO use, enforcement, ownership, management arrangements, acoustics, waste storage, parking, safety and neighbourhood character.

“With regard to waste storage, the plans identified sufficient space for the five wheelie bins required to serve the HMO. The bins were proposed to be located at the front of the property along a side boundary. A condition would require the submission of details for a secure storage arrangement to ensure that bins did not obstruct the public highway.”

“In response to questions regarding parking, officers confirmed that no parking survey had been requested, as neither the Council's highways officers nor Transport for London had raised any objections to the scheme. The existing parking situation in the area was considered acceptable and, although no on- site parking provision was available, there was parking capacity in the surrounding area and the nearby roads were not subject to parking controls.”

Minutes

The committee decision

The committee deferred the application so that a traffic survey could be undertaken.

“ITEM NO: A Member proposed that the item be deferred to allow for a traffic survey to be undertaken. The motion was seconded and the Chair put the Deferral Motion to the vote and with…”

“That the item be deferred in order for a traffic survey to be undertaken.”

Minutes