Seven-bedroom HMO at 183 Applegarth Avenue, Guildford

What was proposed

The application sought to change an existing dwelling into a seven-bedroom HMO, with parking for two cars and cycle storage.

“Location: Applegarth Avenue, Guildford, GU2 8LP Proposal: Change of use from an existing dwelling house under C3 to a 7 bedroom HMO under Sui Generis. (Description amended 10/12/25).”

“The application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the property from a residential dwelling (C3) to a 7 bedroom HMO (sui generis).”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey semi-detached house in a residential neighbourhood with similar properties, a uniform building line and front parking.

“The site is located within the Urban Area. The site consists of a two storey semi-detached dwelling. It lies within a residential neighbourhood where properties are of a similar design and size. The properties are set back from the street and form a uniform building line.”

“As part of the development the front curtilage has been laid to hardstanding. The application references 2 parking spaces to the front of the dwelling and the Highway Authority have assessed the scheme on this basis.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The Highway Authority raised no objection subject to parking and electric charging conditions, Environmental Health and Licensing had no objection, and no third-party comments were received.

“Statutory consultees County Highway Authority: The proposed development has been considered by the County Highway Authority (CHA) who having assessed the application on safety, capacity and policy grounds, raises no objection subject to a suitably worded condition regarding the parking and electric charging of cycles.”

“Internal consultees Head of Environmental Health and Licensing: No objection. The applicant will need to apply for a HMO licence if planning is approved…”

Officer report

Concerns about local HMO numbers

The assessment identified 32 existing licensed HMOs on the road and concluded that the proposal would leave a mix of housing types.

“The following figures show the number of licensed HMOs currently within Applegarth Avenue and the immediately adjacent roads. These figures are based on the Council's register of licensed HMOs (5 bedrooms and above). It is noted that these figures do not include small HMOs (up to 4 bedrooms) as these do not require an HMO licence. The Council does not have a register of small HMO's:”

“However, the percentage total of large HMOs along Applegarth Avenue evidences that there remains a predominance of either small HMOs or dwellinghouses. It is not possible to differentiate between these housing types, but it is clear that there remains a mix of housing types within the surrounding area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor spoke against the application after a presentation from the Development Management Specialist.

What members debated

Members discussed HMO concentration, policy, sustainability, public transport, cycle storage, parking, character and neighbouring amenity.

“In debate, Members acknowledged the wider concerns about HMO concentration and the absence of a more specific policy framework, with several Members indicating that the matter should be pursued through Overview and Scrutiny and/or as part of the next Local Plan process.”

“Concern was expressed that the site was not in a particularly sustainable location, that the nearest bus stop was limited, that cycle parking was positioned at the far end of the garden, and that only two off-street parking spaces were proposed.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillors voted seven for refusal, three against and two abstentions, following a motion proposed and seconded by members.

“Councillor Potter then moved the motion to refuse application 25/P/01084 on the basis of Policy H5, including the proposal’s impact on the character of the immediate locality and neighbouring amenity, and the adequacy of parking and cycle provision. Members were further advised that, if refusing, an additional reason would be required in relation to related legal agreement regarding SPA contributions. The motion to refuse was seconded by Councillor Hives and was carried.”

“FOR AGAINST ABSTAIN 1 Cllr Joss Bigmore X 2 Cllr Richard Mills OBE X 3 Cllr George Potter X 4 Cllr Bilal Akhtar X 5 Cllr Joanne Shaw X 6 Cllr Lizzie Griffiths X 7 Cllr Masuk Miah X 8 Cllr Maddy Redpath X 9 Cllr Stephen Hives X 10 Cllr David Bilbe X 11 Cllr Dominique Williams X 12 Cllr Vanessa King X TOTALS 7 3 2”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because of impacts on local character and neighbours, inadequate parking and cycle provision, and missing SPA mitigation.

“RESOLVED: That application 25/P/01084 be refused on the basis that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on the character of the immediate locality and on the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers, contrary to Policy H5 of the Local Plan, and would fail to provide adequate parking and cycle provision.”

Minutes