11-bedroom HMO at Shaftesbury House Upnor Road Upnor, Rochester

The proposal

The application sought to convert the building into an 11-bedroom, 13-person HMO, with communal spaces, a garden, parking and solar panels.

“The application is for the conversion of the existing building which was previously used as accommodation associated with the former Arethusa Venture Centre to an 11-bedroom, 13 person homes of multiple occupation (HMOs) (sui generis). The only external alterations proposed are the addition of new windows on the rear elevation of the building (fronting Upnor Road) and solar panels on the roof.”

“Ground Floor – 4 bedrooms, 2 shower rooms, communal kitchen/dining, communal breakout space, cleaner’s cupboard and w.c.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for enlarging the dwelling by adding a storey was refused in May 2023.

“MC/23/0799 Prior approval for the enlargement of a dwelling by construction of additional storey. The maximum height proposed is 15.63m. Decision: Refusal Decided: May 2023 Representations…”

Officer report

The officer recommendation

Officers recommended approval with conditions, finding no HMO concentration and suitable accommodation without harm to neighbouring amenity.

“There is no over concentration of HMOs in the area, and the proposal has been designed to provide a good level of amenity for prospective occupiers without harming the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers.”

“The proposal complies with the provisions set out in paragraphs 11, 60, 115, 116, 131, 135, 135(f), 193 and 194 of the NPPF, Policies BNE1, BNE2, BNE35, CF1, H7, S6, T1 and T13 of the Local Plan and Policy T8 of the emerging Plan. The application is, therefore, recommended for approval.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Kent Police raised security concerns, while the Environment Agency had no objection because the development would be safe for its lifetime.

“The application has been advertised on site and by individual neighbour notification to the owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties. Kent Police, KCC Archaeology and the Environment Agency have also been consulted.”

“The Environment Agency have advised that they have no objection to the proposed development, as the supporting documents provide sufficient evidence to suggest that the development will be safe for its lifetime.”

Officer report

Objections received

Seventy-one objections raised concerns about character, traffic, parking, sustainability, facilities, noise, privacy, wildlife, flooding and community effects.

“Proposal would not contribute positively to the local environment or respect the character and appearance of the area; • An HMO would disrupt the village’s social cohesion; • Increased noise; • Increased traffic movements and parking congestion; • Road safety conditions for pedestrians and drivers due to overspill parking; • No community facilities in Upnor; • Not a sustainable location; • Overdevelopment of the site; • Increase in household waste; • Loss of a much-needed…”

“Proposal is an unsuitable use within the context of Lower Upnor; • Badly designed and out of character with the existing residential properties; • It would set an unacceptable precedent; • Overdevelopment; • It would erode Upnor’s history and identity; • Restricted highway access which already causes traffic problems, which the proposal will add to; • Increased noise, disturbance and potential for anti-social behaviour; • Future occupants would be isolated; • No services…”

Officer report

What was said

Councillor Williams asked Members to refuse the application, citing the village’s character, weak transport, limited infrastructure and traffic effects.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed public transport, traffic, parking, social cohesion and the location, while officers explained parking standards, housing need and building reuse.

“The Committee discussed the planning application noting the officer presentation, the report, the supplementary advice sheet and the Ward Councillor’s comments. In particular, the issues of the lack of public transport, traffic movements, parking, social cohesion and the particular location of this application were discussed.”

“The Service Manager – Development Planning responded to the issues raised by Members during discussion, stating that as previously advised, there were no standards in place for HMO parking, that a variety of housing was required across Medway and HMOs formed part of that mix, this property had no attached neighbours and that the National Planning Policy Framework supported the reuse of existing buildings, this site had been vacant for a significant amount of time.”

Minutes

The vote

The proposal to approve the application with conditions was lost.

“On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the recommendations set out in the report (approval with conditions), was lost.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because the location had limited facilities, weak sustainable transport, parking impacts and insufficient facilities for HMO occupants.

“Members discussed the reasons for refusal, in detail.”

“REFUSED on the grounds including the introduction of a HMO into a location which has limited facilities and is considered to be in an unsustainable location, the lack of sustainable transport opportunities, the impact of lack of parking on the amenity of local residents and the lack of facilities for those living in the HMO.”

Minutes