Six-person HMO conversion at 47 Arbroath Road, Eltham, London SE9

What was proposed

The application sought a six-person, six-bedroom HMO, a rear extension, a loft conversion with wrap-around dormer, a rooflight and external changes.

“The Committee is requested to grant full planning permission for the following proposal – “Change of use from Use Class C3 (dwellinghouse) to a six-person, six-bedroom, small HMO (Use Class C4), construction of a single storey ground floor rear extension, loft conversion incorporating rear and side wrap around dormer, addition of a rooflight on the front roof slope and associated external alterations.”

“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 surroundings

The site is a two-storey semi-detached home in a residential cul-de-sac beside the Progress Estate Conservation Area, with low public transport access.

“The surrounding area is residential in nature, consisting mainly of two-storey semi-detached and detached properties that are moderately similar in architectural design and appearance.”

“The application site does not contain or neighbour any statutorily or locally listed building. However, it is adjacent to the Progress Estate Conservation Area which is to the south (rear) of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and works

A five-person HMO and rear extension were approved, the loft conversion was certified lawful, and an earlier six-bedroom HMO scheme was refused and dismissed on appeal.

“Planning application ref: 25/1451/F was approved on 27/11/2025 for “Change of use from a single-family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a 5-bedroom 5- person HMO (Use Class C4); construction of a single storey rear extension; other associated alterations.”

“ITEM NO: PAGE NO: 4 dormer roof extension.” This granted consent for a loft conversion and rear dormer roof extension which has the same for, which is proposed within this application for planning permission, and confirms that those works could be implemented on the site without the need for formal planning permission.”

Officer report

Concerns raised

Objectors raised concerns about HMO occupants, loss of family housing, amenity, parking, design, overcrowding, management, safety, services, covenants and enforcement.

“ITEM NO: PAGE NO: 7 overconcentration of HMO’s within a specific area. Concerns regarding impact on residential amenity due to noise and disturbance, overshadowing, overlooking, loss of daylight and loss of privacy. This is considered with the “Impact on neighbouring amenity” section of the report Concerns regarding increased traffic and parking issues and unacceptable impacts on the operation of the wider highways network.”

“ITEM NO: PAGE NO: Concerns regarding existing covenant terms associated with the site This is not a material planning consideration that would affect the determination of a planning decision. Private covenants and other land matters are not related at all to applications for planning permission. Concerns regarding the development being unsympathetic to the local character This has been assessed in the “Design” section of the report.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Residents addressed the committee in objection, and the applicant’s representative spoke in support and answered members’ questions.

What members debated

Members discussed kitchen size, the lawful loft conversion, overlooking, parking, covenants, management and the difference from the earlier refused scheme.

“In response to Members questions the Planning Officer said that the size of the kitchen met the minimum requirement, although only marginally. The difference between the current 6-person, 6-bedroom HMO application and the previously refused 6 bed HMO scheme is that, in the earlier proposal, the sixth bedroom was to be provided within the proposed part one, part two-storey extension.”

“In response to Members’ questions, the Applicant’s Representative said he did not own HMOs but was the Planning Consultant for No 40 Arbroath Rd and that permission had been granted and building work was ongoing. Each Council had its own rules regarding minimum standards and the 10.5m² kitchen size was the minimum for Greenwich. From their experience tenants preferred to have their own ensuites and larger room space, rather than a bigger kitchen.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members rejected a refusal motion by five votes to four, then approved the application by five votes to four.

“The Head of Development Management reminded Members that the proposed kitchen size met the required standards, and no concerns had been raised in relation to parking. In terms of refusal on the grounds of overdevelopment, Members would need to be specific which policy that related to. The Development Control Manager, West reminded Members that the plans had not changed and that the dormer had been built out lawfully.”

“The Refusal Motion was seconded. The Chair put the Motion to the vote and with…”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted for the HMO conversion and associated works, subject to conditions and authorised minor wording changes.

“That planning consent be granted for the change of use from Use Class C3 (dwellinghouse) to a six-person, six-bedroom, small HMO (Use Class C4), construction of a single storey ground floor rear That full planning permission is GRANTED for the Change of use from Use Class C3 (dwellinghouse) to a six-person, six-bedroom, small HMO (Use Class C4), construction of a single storey ground floor rear extension, loft conversion incorporating rear and side wrap around dormer,…”

“That the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control is authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in this report and its addendums, where the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control considers it appropriate, before issuing the decision notice.”

Minutes