Seven-person HMO at 197 Applegarth Avenue, Guildford

What was proposed

The application sought a seven-bedroom, seven-person HMO with front, side and rear extensions and changes to windows after demolishing existing structures.

“Change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a 7-bedroom, 7-person, large House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis), with the erection of a ground floor front extension, two storey side extension and single storey rear extension with changes to the fenestration following demolition of the existing conservatory, garage and front porch.(Description amended 10/12/25).”

“The roof of the existing porch would be altered from a flat roof to a monopitch roof and minor changes to fenestration within the front porch would be made. The existing walkway and garage would be demolished to make way for the two storey side extension.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a two-storey semi-detached home on a triangular corner plot in a residential neighbourhood, with one off-street parking space.

“Site description. The application site is located within the ward of Westborough at the northern end of Applegarth Avenue, and occupies a triangular corner plot.”

“The site comprises a two storey semi-detached dwelling. A single storey side projection containing a garage and walkway through to the rear garden extends beyond the dwelling's north eastern flank elevation and a single storey conservatory extends beyond the rear. The property features a gable ended roof and is finished in facing brickwork.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement securing contributions for protected-site mitigation.

“RECOMMENDATION: That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant planning permission subject to conditions and a S106 agreement being entered…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The County Highway Authority and private-sector housing service raised no objection, while four representations raised concerns about parking, safety, character, sunlight, wildlife, scale and noise.

“GBC Private Sector Housing- No objection. The applicant will need to apply for a HMO licence if planning is approved…”

“Parking concerns • Highway safety • Impact to character of the area • Loss of sunlight to properties • Scale of the proposed extension • Impact to wildlife • Noise concerns…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Development Management Specialist presented the proposal, and a borough ward councillor spoke against it.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned parking, cycle access, cumulative HMO effects, neighbouring amenity, decision consistency, policy coverage and missing mitigation contributions.

“During debate, members drew comparisons with the previous application considered at the meeting and raised concerns under Policy H5. Particular concern was expressed regarding the adequacy of parking provision, with only one off-street space proposed, and the practical accessibility of the cycle parking.”

“While acknowledging that the site was closer to a bus stop than the previous application, members considered that the cumulative impact of large HMOs would harm the character of the immediate locality and neighbouring residential amenity, contrary to Policy H5 (criteria a, b and c), and that the application failed to secure the necessary mitigation contributions.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to refuse was moved, seconded and carried, with the majority supporting determination on the application’s individual planning merits.

“Concerns were raised by some Members about the consistency of decision-making and the absence of a more specific policy framework in relation to the concentration of HMOs. However, the majority of Members considered that the application should be determined on its individual planning merits and that sufficient grounds for refusal had been identified.”

“Councillor Potter then moved the motion to refuse application 25/P/01290 on the basis of Policy H5, including the proposal’s impact on the character of the immediate locality and neighbouring residential amenity, the adequacy of parking and cycle provision, and the failure to secure appropriate mitigation contributions. The motion to refuse was seconded by Councillor Redpath and was carried.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because of unacceptable effects on local character and neighbours, inadequate parking and cycle provision, and missing protected-site mitigation.

“RESOLVED: That application 25/P/01290 be refused on the basis that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on the character of the immediate locality and the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers, contrary to Policy H5 of the Local Plan; would fail to provide adequate parking and cycle provision; and fails to secure the necessary mitigation in relation to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area through an appropriate legal agreement.”

Minutes