Five-person HMO at 101 Hedge Place Road, Greenhithe

What was proposed

The application sought to turn a dwelling into a five-bedroom, five-person HMO, with refuse and bike storage and a wider vehicle access.

“(4) Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the existing dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a 5-bedroom, 5-person House of Multiple Occupation (Class C4) with provision of refuse and bike storage to the front of the site. There are no proposed external changes to the existing building although the proposal includes an extension to the width of the dropped kerb/vehicular access by 980mm.”

“(6) The bin and bike storage would be located in the front garden in secure units.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a semi-detached house with a driveway, rear garden and outbuilding, beside a dwelling and an authorised children’s care home.

“(1) The application site is a semi-detached dwellinghouse on the northern side of Hedge Place Road, and to the north of the junction with Plantation Close. The property has a front driveway which is paved and benefits from a dropped kerb serving one car. It also benefits from a generous rear garden with an outbuilding containing a gym and shower room.”

“(2) The application site area is approximately 499.63m2. The rear garden has an area of 230m2 with the outbuilding having a floor area of 39.19m2. The land levels across the site are relatively even, with the rear garden being slightly lower than the main house.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered an outbuilding, conservatory and extensions, while a lawful development certificate application for the HMO was refused.

“(8) 26/00031/LDC - Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for proposed change of use from Class C3 Dwellinghouse to 5 bed 5 person Class C4 HMO Permission Required 03.02.2026”

“The application for a lawful development certificate proposed (s172) was refused because: The use of the property as a House in Multiple Occupation with up to 5 occupants is considered to constitute a material change of use requiring planning permission and the proposed change of use from C3 to C4 would not benefit from permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class L of the GPDO due to the presence of an Article 4 restricting such development.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the proposal was considered acceptable for housing mix, parking, future occupants, neighbours and local character.

“(69) The acceptability of the application has been assessed above in terms of impact on housing mix, sustainability of location and principle, parking provision, living conditions of future occupiers, implications for residential amenity (with particular regard to activity/disturbance) and character and appearance. In each regard the development is considered to be acceptable.”

“(70) I therefore consider that the proposed development is acceptable and compliant with the relevant policies of the Dartford Local Plan to 2037 and the NPPF and I recommend that planning permission be granted.”

Officer report

Concerns from local people

People from ten addresses objected over parking, disturbance, antisocial behaviour, refuse, privacy, infrastructure, HMO concentration and neighbourhood character.

“(16) In response to neighbour notification and posting of a site notice, responses were received from ten different addresses raising objection and these are summarised as follows: - Quiet road with a community character - Harm to community cohesion - Existing anti-social issues and police presence - Existing parking pressures and congestion - Danger to pedestrians from unsafe parking - Burden on infrastructure - Overconcentration of HMOs - Increase in noise, activity,…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent spoke in support and said the larger dwelling avoided harm to housing mix and could provide social value for local health workers.

Questions and concerns

Members questioned access, NHS marketing, parking allocation, highway safety, the neighbouring care home, family housing, HMO concentration and the outbuildings.

“Members asked various questions around rear or side access, marketing towards the NHS and how parking would be allocated. In response, it was confirmed there was no side or rear access with access only through the house, marketing was done through the open market; however, efforts would be made to consult specialist agents, and the plans were to include the parking spaces in the rental cost of the larger rooms.”

“Further questions and concerns were raised about highway safety and parking due to the children’s home next door, loss of a family dwelling, saturation of HMO accommodation, strategic policy to protect residents from anti-social behavior and what would happen to the gym and outbuildings.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The motion to support approval passed with six votes in favour, four against and two abstentions, and permission was granted subject to conditions.

“The Chairman moved a motion to support the Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission. The motion was seconded, put to a vote and carried. The vote was 6 in favour, 4 against and 2 abstentions.”

“That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in the report and revised conditions set out in the update report.”

Minutes