7-bed HMO conversion at 872 Sidcup Road, Eltham, London SE9

What was proposed

The application sought extensions and roof alterations to convert the dwelling into a seven-bedroom HMO for up to seven people.

“Planning permission is sought for the construction of a hip-to gable loft conversion incorporating rear box dormer roof extension and front rooflights, construction of a part 1, part 2 storey rear extension and associated external alterations to facilitate the conversion of the existing dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a 7-bed HMO (Use Class Sui Generis) for up to 7 persons.”

“Two flat roof lights would be installed to the front roof slope of the original roof.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Twenty-one objections raised concerns including noise, character, neighbouring amenity, parking, waste, HMO concentration, privacy and over-intensification.

“Summary of Comments Officer comment • Increase in noise and disturbance from higher occupancy levels. Noise pollution has been addressed in section 11 of the report. • Impact on character and visual amenity. Impact on character is considered in section 10 of the report. • Impact on neighbouring amenity. Impact on amenity is considered in section 11 of the report. • Increase in the number of HMOS in the area.”

“Loss of family-size dwellings. There are no applicable policies relating to the use of a dwellinghouse as an HMO. restricting the number of HMOs or relating to the overconcentration of HMO’s within a specific area. • Increase in traffic, parking and pollution Parking is considered in section 13 of the report. • Increase in waste Waste effects are considered in section 15 of the report. • Impact on the Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two ward councillors spoke against the application, while the applicant’s agent supported approval and addressed noise, standards, parking, waste and management.

What members debated

Members debated whether the extra occupant would over-intensify the house, increase comings and goings, and harm residents despite the site’s busy-road location.

“In determining the application before them a number of the Member’s noted that permission for six residents was already in place and considered the proposal represent an overdevelopment. That they considered the increase would result in with too many comings and goings, undermine residents’ quality of life, prioritising financial gain over people, wellbeing, and genuine community considerations rather than any sense of social or public value.”

“A Member advised that they were reassured that the proposed room division would not create two rooms as small as they thought. However, they were concerned as to what was really meant by quality accommodation which sometimes seemed to be conflated with packing as many units as possible into the smallest space, rather than providing a reasonable number of homes within what was originally a family house, while respecting the fact that people are living in a neighbourhood.”

Minutes

The vote

The proposal to grant consent was rejected by 1 vote to 3, with 2 members abstaining.

“The Chair put the proposal to grant planning consent for the 7 person HMO to the vote with 1 Members in favour 3 Members against 2 Members abstaining.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Consent was refused because a seven-bed, seven-person HMO would create unacceptable noise and disturbance for neighbouring properties.

“As Members had refused the application the grounds for refusal were clarified as while traffic and busy roads were common across many locations, this did not justify continually increasing HMO occupancy. Although the Committee had approved many HMOs, there must be a threshold beyond which schemes become unmanageable and harm the amenity of neighbouring residents.”

“That consent for a 7 person HMO be refused on the grounds that a 7 bed, 7 persons HMO would create unacceptable noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties.”

Minutes