Seven-bedroom HMO conversion at 81 Balmoral Road, Willesden, London NW2

What was proposed

The application proposed a rear dormer, rooflights, external alterations, landscaping and conversion of the dwelling into a seven-bedroom, eight-person HMO.

“Document Imaged DocRepF Ref: 25/0938Page1of16 COMMITTEE REPORT Planning Committee on4 August, 2025 Item No06 Case Number25/0938 SITE INFORMATION RECEIVED28 March, 2025 WARDWillesden Green PLANNING AREABrent Connects Willesden LOCATION81 Balmoral Road, London, NW2 5BH PROPOSALProposed rear dormer extension with Juliet balcony, new patio doors and ground floor kitchen door to rear, installation of 2x front roof lights, new front boundary treatment, conversion from…”

“PROPOSAL IN DETAIL The application seeks a proposed rear dormer extension with Juliet balcony, new patio doors and ground floor kitchen door to rear, installation of 2x front rooflights, new front boundary treatment. The use of the property would be converted from dwellinghouse to a 7-bedroom, 8-person house in multiple occupation (HMO), soft landscaping to rear garden and installation of refuse storage and cycle storage to front garden.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to a unilateral undertaking, including £4,500 for a nearby public cycle hangar, and planning conditions.

“RECOMMENDATIONS That the Committee resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a satisfactory Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act to secure the following planning obligations; Payment of the Council’s legal and other professional costs in (a) preparing and completing the agreement and (b) monitoring and enforcing its performance 2.”

“That the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person has delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, Informatives, or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the…”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the location, accommodation, design, highways arrangements and management measures acceptable without harmful effects on neighbours.

“SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES The key planning issues for Members to consider are set out below. Members will need to balance all of the planning issues and the objectives of relevant planning policies when deciding on the application. Representations received:26 separate objections were received, which have been evaluated and discussed within the report. Officers have considered the comments and the planning merits of the proposal and consider that the proposal is acceptable.”

“Design and Appearance: The proposal is considered to represent a good standard of design that would have balanced appearance with the existing site and would not result in harmful impact on the character and appearance of the local area. Residential Amenity: Although the proposed development would be noticeable to the existing residents and neighbours, the changes would be modest and not harmful to the overall living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.”

Officer report

What residents objected to

Objections raised concerns about accommodation quality, noise, character, parking, rubbish, overcrowding, HMO concentration, privacy, light and management.

“CONSULTATIONS Twenty-nine (29) nearby and neighbouring properties have been notified as part of the public consultation for this application on 8th April 2025 for a 21 day period. In total 24 objections have been received from individuals (some of which submitted multiple comments) which object to the proposed development on the following grounds: Reasons for objectingOfficer Comment Inadequate quality of accommodationThis is discussed in the quality of accommodation section…”

“Increased pollution/rubbish on streetsThe proposal is considered to have sufficient refuse storage and has provided sufficient waste management measures in the submitted HMO management plan OvercrowdingThe proposed number of occupants would not result in overcrowding and would only be a minor increase on the potential number of occupiers the existing dwelling could accommodate– this is to be addressed further in the neighbouring amenity section of this report…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A resident spoke for objectors, a ward councillor supported the objections, and the applicant addressed concerns about accommodation and management.

What members considered

Members questioned HMO numbers, licensing evidence, management enforcement, waste storage and whether the area contained an over-concentration of HMOs.

“Details were sought on whether any evidence of existing unlicenced HMOs or the identification of further HMOs within the area would impact on officers recommended approval of the application. Cutis Thompson (Career Grade Planning Officer) replied that the current concentration of HMOs had been subject to detailed assessment based on the information available with members noting that in addition to the Selective Licensing database details were also held in relation to…”

“In seeking further assurance regarding the assessment undertaken on the concentration of HMOs in the surrounding area Aidan Brookes (as the Committee’s legal adviser) advised that substantive evidence was needed to establish the number of HMOs in the area and there seemed to be no evidence of an over-concentration. David Glover stated that checks were carried out, records checked and site visits conducted.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee unanimously granted permission subject to the required unilateral undertaking, conditions and informatives.

“The Committee RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to:”

“(1) The prior completion of a satisfactory Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act to secure the planning obligations as set out within the main committee report.”

Minutes