Six-person HMO at 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, London SE3

What was proposed

The application sought to convert a single-family home into a six-bedroom, six-person HMO, with changes to openings, a side gate, cycle storage and bins.

“The Committee is requested to GRANT full planning permission for the following proposal – “Change of use from single-family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a 6- bedroom HMO (Use Class C4) for up to six residents; alterations to windows and doors; creation of a side gate; provision of cycle and bin storage; other associated works.”

“To grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2, to be detailed in the notice of determination.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is a two-storey semi-detached house in a mainly residential area, with low public transport access and no controlled parking zone.

“The application site relates to a two-storey semi-detached dwellinghouse located on the southeastern side of Whetstone Road. The subject property has an single-storey rear extension as well as a single-storey rear outbuilding/shed.”

“The surrounding area is primarily residential in nature, consisting mainly of two-storey semi-detached and terraced properties that are moderately similar in architectural design and appearance. The site is also around 50m northeast of the St Nicholas, Kidbrooke which is a Church of England Church at No. 66A Whetstone Road.”

Officer report

Existing extension and planning history

The rear extension has existed since at least 2003 and was considered lawful, while the site had no relevant planning history.

“The existing single-storey rear extension has an irregular footprint and measures up to around 4.67m deep, 5.86m wide and 2.46m tall. While there are no planning records of this extension, historic satellite imagery indicates that it has existed since at least 2003.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A ward councillor, six residents and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee about community impacts, safeguarding, management, waste, parking and the existing extension.

What members discussed

Members questioned whether safeguarding concerns justified refusal and sought clarification about Children’s Services, the HMO’s management arrangements and another property mentioned by speakers.

“Following the public addresses, two Members expressed their understanding of the argument that vulnerable children could be more vulnerable to the increase turnover of occupants of an HMO and their coming in and going, which could have a destabilising impact on children who had gone through trauma and were vulnerable.”

“A Member noted that, as part of his address, the applicant’s agent mentioned that they gave their companies number out to deal with complaints and sought clarification as to whether SAM Planning were acting solely as the agent or were they also the management agent for this application.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to defer for safeguarding advice and a site visit was supported by six members, opposed by one, with no abstentions.

“The Motion to defer the decision in order to take further advice from the Children's Services, safeguarding team and for a site visit was put forward by Councillor Dave Sullivan and seconded by Councillor Jahida Spencer.”

“The Chair put the proposal to defer the application in line with the motion to defer to the vote with – 6 Members in favour 1 Member against 0 Members abstaining…”

Minutes

The decision

The committee deferred the application so Children’s Services safeguarding officers could comment and a site visit could take place.

“That the decision on the application be deferred in order that comments on the proposal can be obtained from the Councils Children’s Services, safeguarding team, and that a site visit be undertaken.”

Minutes