Five-person HMO at 24 Eaglesfield Road, Plumstead, London SE18

“Planning permission is sought for the change of use from existing single-family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a change of use from existing single-family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a 5-bed, 5-person HMO (Use Class C4), and all other associated alterations.”

“Bedroom three, four and five would be located at first floor level with a communal bathroom. Bedroom three would feature an en-suite.”

“Figure 2 - aerial of the application site (identified by red line) and the Shrewsbury Park Conservation Area (identified by green highlighted area).”

“The Shrewsbury Park Conservation Area does have an Article 4 Direction. However, as set out in the Shrewsbury Park Article 4 Guidance Note (2016), this does not cover Eaglesfield Road, including the application stie (no. 24).”

“Highways and parking in section 16 of this report. • The previous occupants of Eaglesfield Road have been using the side street as a parking spot for damaged cars. However, this appears to be unoccupied, and all the damaged cars are removed. A site visit was undertaken on the 23/09/2025 and the application site appears to be unoccupied. • Incompatibility with Conservation Area.”

“The implication for Highways is discussed in section 16 of this report. Waste Services: I have had a look at this application and can agree that i am satisfied with this proposal. The implications for waste are discussed elsewhere in section 18 of this report. Conservation Officer Given there are not notable external alterations, no heritage concerns raised for the proposed change of use to HMO use subject to meeting the requirements of relevant planning policies.”

“Section 2.2 of the Council’s HMO Licensing Standards (2019) states the following: ‘When reading these standards in relation to minimum room sizes for children the following criteria shall always apply: • No bedroom can be let to a child under the age of 18 without a parent/legal guardian also occupying a bedroom in the HMO. • A child’s bedroom will be lockable (thumb turn lock) with two keys provided to the parent/legal guardian.”

“The applicant has provided details of the location of the parent / legal guardian room on drawing no. DRG/001/08 (Rev. C – Proposed Ground and First Floor Plans), which would be bedroom 4, and so would be directly across from the child’s room. The child’s room would be fitted with a wireless door sensor, and the parent / legal guardian would have a receiving unit.”

“The Senior Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the applicants reasoning for the inclusion of a child’s room had been sought and they had been advised that it was proposed as such as the room did not meet adult occupancy size requirements. There were sufficient conditions to support planning enforcement if the room was used for adult occupancy. The HMO guidance stated the child’s room should be…”

“A Member initially noted that they were not against the idea of a child’s room as there were situations where the child would be too old to share the parental room but did hold similar concerns as other Members in respect of the child’s safeguarding in this configuration and situation. However, upon being made aware the room was for occupation of a child who was 10 or under, the Member was less inclined to support the proposal…”

“Members noted that the proposal had to be reviewed as any other HMO, however, it was felt that they had to hold themselves to a greater level of detail and accountability, in this case, due to the potential safeguarding risk to a child, noting in particular the room was not adjacent to the parent/guardians and was designated for the sole occupancy of a child under the age of 10 in a multi-use facility with shared bathroom.”

“That refusal of planning consent was on the following basis – • The proposed HMO arrangement results in an unsatisfactorily layout for Room 4 and Room 5 (parent and child) in that it fails to properly protect the amenity and safety of the residents of these two rooms, especially the child (under 10). Furthermore these two rooms only have access to a shared first floor bathroom and it is not considered to provide safe and satisfactory amenities for occupiers.”