Six-person HMO conversion at 56 Camdale Road, Plumstead, London SE18

What was proposed

The application proposed extensions and roof works to convert a family dwelling into a six-bedroom HMO for up to six people.

“The application seeks a change of single family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a six bedroom small HMO (Use Class C4) with a maximum capacity of six persons together with the construction of single-storey side and rear extension, hip to gable loft conversions and rear dormer extension with front rooflights.”

“It should be noted that the dwelling was recently granted a Certificate of Lawful development (ref: 25/1691/CP) for a side extension, rear extension, hip to gable loft conversion and rear dormer of identical proportions to the physical works proposed under this application.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey semi-detached house with gardens in an Area of Special Character, near playing fields and the Plumstead Common Conservation Area.

“The immediate vicinity consists of a similar design of dwellings. Land levels are generally even across the site. The site sits within an Area of Special Character. The area to the immediate south contains the Swingate Lane playing fields.”

“The property is not located within a Conservation Area, but is located on the opposite side (south) of Camdale Road, to the Woolwich Old Cemetery. This is the boundary to the Plumstead Common Conservation Area, which is also designated Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and Site of Nature Conservation Importance. The dwelling is not a locally or statutorily listed building and is not affected by Article 4 Direction.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Twenty-three objections raised concerns including HMO concentration, loss of a family home, parking, safety, noise, waste and accommodation standards; highways and waste officers had no objections.

“Twenty-three (23) objections have been received in relation to the proposed development, some from the same address. It should be noted that several of the objections received as part of the second round of consultation had objected to the original scheme and the number relates to the total number of objectors as opposed to the number of objections received. A summary of the neighbour objections is provided below:”

“ITEM NO: PAGE NO: • Proliferation of HMOs in this part of the Borough • Loss of family home • Parking concerns • Road safety concerns • The parking survey does not take into account if there is an event taking place on the nearby playing fields This is addressed within the highways and parking section of the report below.”

Officer report

Who spoke

One resident spoke against the proposal, and the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the HMO, its design and its management.

Members’ debate

Members discussed permitted development rights, transport links, parking availability, enforcement, HMO concerns, alleged antisocial behaviour and the need to decide on planning grounds.

“The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions advising that whilst the site was not close to train stations it was within walking distance of several bus stops connecting to larger transport hubs. The parking stress survey was undertaking in line with the Transport Departments guidelines and showed a 24% occupancy and 76% availability.”

“The applicant’s agents addressed the Planning Committee advising that the proposal met all local and national planning policies and supported by the London Plan which recognised the role of HMOs in meeting housing needs and the Local Planning Policy supported a mix of housing types and tenures and a small six-person HMO at this site was acceptable. Further, Greenwich Council did not have an over-concentration policy in respect of HMOs.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted four in favour and one against, with no abstentions; one councillor did not vote because they had missed earlier proceedings.

“The Chair put the recommendation to grant planning consent to the vote with – 4 Members in Favour 1 Member Against 0 Members Abstaining.”

“Councillor Asli Mohammed has been unable to vote as they had not been present for the Officer presentation and earlier aspects of the objector’s address.”

Minutes

The decision

Full planning permission was granted for the extensions, roof works and six-person HMO conversion, subject to conditions and minor wording changes being authorised.

“That Full Planning Permission be granted for the construction of single- storey side and rear extension, hip to gable loft conversion and rear dormer extension with front rooflights to facilitate the change of use of a single family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a six-bedroom small HMO with a maximum capacity of six person.”

“That the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) be authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out at Appendix 2 of the report, where…”

Minutes