Six-person HMO conversion at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, London SE18

What was proposed

The application sought a six-bedroom, six-person HMO, loft conversion, rear dormer, rear extension, cycle storage, refuse storage and associated alterations.

“Planning permission is sought for the change of use from existing single- family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a 6-bed, 6-person HMO (Use Class C4), in addition to a loft conversion and construction of a L-shaped rear dormer, single storey rear extension, cycle and refuse storage and all other associated alterations.”

“An L-shaped rear dormer is proposed on the existing roofscape. The proposed rear dormer on the existing roofscape would have an approximate depth of 3.55m, full width of 4.20m and eaves height of 2.47m. Part of the rear dormer on the L-shaped two-storey rear outrigger would have an approximate depth of 3.33m, width of 2.33m and eaves height of 3.47. This would feature two rear facing openings and serve bedroom 6.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An approved certificate covered the proposed dormer, while an earlier approval covered a loft conversion and dormer.

“App Number: 25/2194/CP Decision: Approved Decision Date: 29/08/2025 Address: MELLING STREET, PLUMSTEAD, LONDON, SE18 2EG Description: Certificate of Lawfulness (Proposed) is sought for the L-shaped dormer extension with front roof lights…”

“App Number: 90/1014/F Decision: Approved Decision Date: 02/05/1991 Address: Melling Street SE18 Description: Loft conversion and erection of dormer.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two residents spoke against the proposal, an elderly neighbour described serious concerns, and the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

What members debated

Members discussed parking, noise, space, outdoor amenity, neighbour wellbeing, management arrangements and possible links with another HMO.

“The Area Planning Manager explained that Article 4 Direction of the Planning Act, was implemented in 2018-19 to ensure proper oversight of small HMOs, which previously did not require planning permission, and to improve the quality of accommodation in line with planning and HMO licensing standards.”

“Members moved to determine the application before them with a Members expresses strong opposition to the proposed HMO, as they were concerned at the sense of enclosure, noise, lack of parking, and particularly the negative impact on wellbeing and quality of life of the long-standing elderly resident residents adjacent to the development. They believed that residents amenity should also include mental and emotional impacts.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee voted three to two, with no abstentions, to defer the application for a site visit and comments from the HMO Licensing Team.

“The Chair put that the application be deferred for a site visit the vote with – 3 Members in favour 2 Members against 0 Members abstaining.”

“Resolved that the decision on the application be deferred in order to undertake a site visit and officer to approach the HMO Licensing Team for comment…”

Minutes