Seven-person HMO at 25 Franklin Road, Gillingham

What was proposed

The application sought a seven-person HMO with extensions, roof alterations, extra living accommodation, storage and external changes.

“The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a 7-bedroom, 7-person house of multiple occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis) together with construction of a two-storey rear extension, single storey side extension, L-shaped dormer window to rear and installation of roof lights to front to provide additional living accommodation within roof space with associated bin/cycle store and associated external alterations -…”

Minutes

The site and local pattern

The area contained flats and two HMOs, with 67 properties within 200 metres and the proposal representing 1.5% of them.

“The Senior Planner further explained that the density map showed the breakdown of uses within the area, identified through a review of the planning history and a site walking survey. No care homes or hostels were identified, however, two HMOs and a number of flats were identified.”

Minutes

Earlier HMO applications

Previous HMO applications had been refused and a later appeal had been dismissed, with similar concerns remaining.

“She had objected to the proposal on the grounds that it would result in the loss of a family home, noting that previous HMO applications had been refused and a subsequent appeal dismissed, with similar concerns remaining unaddressed.”

Minutes

Officers’ recommendation

The officers’ recommendation was to approve the application.

“The Committee voted on the officers’ recommendation to approve the application. Upon being put to the vote, the recommendation was lost.”

Minutes

Ward concerns

The Ward Councillor objected because of family housing loss, disturbance, overdevelopment, limited garden space, parking pressure and local HMO concentration.

Members’ discussion

Members questioned the basement kitchen, expressed concerns about the proposal and considered possible refusal reasons, including the garden and adjacent front doors.

“While Members expressed concern about the proposal, they acknowledged that identifying planning reasons for refusal was challenging. Members were reminded that the application had been amended and reduced from a 9-person HMO to a 7-person HMO. The Chief Planning Officer further advised that, should Members be minded to refuse the application, they should be cautious about introducing reasons for refusal that had not formed part of the previous appeal considerations.”

“Members subsequently discussed potential reasons for refusal. Concerns were raised regarding the two adjacent front doors and that the size of the garden would be inadequate to serve the proposed number of occupants.”

Minutes

Why it was refused

The application was refused because the use would increase activity, noise and disturbance, harming neighbouring occupiers’ amenity.

“Refused on the grounds that the scale and intensity of the use would, due to the increased comings and goings to the property with the front door immediately adjacent to the neighbours door at no 27 and general activity within the property and within the rear garden, create increased noise and disturbance that would result in harm to the level of amenity enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers.”

Minutes