Six-person HMO at 27 Hever Croft, Eltham, London SE9

What was proposed

The application sought a six-bedroom, six-person HMO, a single-storey rear extension and associated external alterations.

“The current application seeks full planning permission for the following: “Change of use from an existing single-dwelling house (Use Class C3) to a 6-bed, 6 person HMO (Use Class C4), construction of a single storey rear extension and associated external alterations.”

“To achieve this, the proposal also includes a 3 metre in depth single storey, proposed to the width of the existing dwellinghouse and to a height of 3 metres, completed with a flat roof.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Twenty-three objections were received, while highways and waste officers raised no objections and environmental health requested construction-related information.

“Twenty-three (23) objections have been received in relation to the proposed development, including objections from Cllr Tester and Cllr Hartley. A summary of the neighbour objections is provided below:”

“ITEM NO: 4 PAGE NO: 5 constitutes overdevelopment” • Concerns that the originally submitted ownership certificate for the application was not correct. This is noted. It is noted that the correct ownership certificate has now been signed and the relevant owner has been notified of the proposal as part of the serving of the correct ownership certificate.”

Officer report

What people said

A ward councillor and a resident objected over the loss of a family home, noise, parking, overdevelopment, management and effects on neighbouring amenity.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed building materials, noise, toilets, lighting, management arrangements and whether the decision should be deferred for further clarification.

“Another Member felt that the Committee should add a condition requiring an Operational Management Plan to address the noise from the automatic closing front door and disturbance from the security lighting.”

“The Senior Principal Planning Officer advised that planning practice guidance required that any condition had to pass six tests, which included enforceability and reasonableness. That a condition restricting the times residents would be able to use the rear garden would not be reasonable or enforceable. However, it could be considered whether there is a reasonable or acceptable time for the motion detector light to be in operation.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted to grant permission with an additional operational management condition and an insulation informative, by four votes to one.

“The Chair put the recommendation to grant planning consent with the additional condition requiring an Operational Management Plan and Informative elating to insulation to the vote with 4 Members in Favour 1 Member Against 0 Members abstaining…”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted for the HMO, extension and external alterations, subject to the report and addendum conditions and amended management-plan requirements.

“That full planning permission be granted for the change of use from an existing single-dwelling house (Use Class C3) to a 6-bed, 6 person HMO (Use Class C4), construction of a single storey rear extension and associated external alterations.”

“That consent was subject to the conditions set out at Appendix 2 of the report and addendum, to be detailed in the notice of determination with – • An amendment to Condition 9 relating to the Operational Management Plan for additional commitments to be required to ensure that the noise of the main entrance door does not impact neighbouring properties and for additional commitments identifying…”

Minutes