8-person HMO at 85 Tonbridge Road, Maidstone

What was proposed

The application sought to change a six-bedroom, six-person HMO into an eight-bedroom, eight-person HMO, with bin and cycle stores.

“The current application seeks permission to use the building as an 8 bedroom 8 person HMO (Sui Generis). As part of the application the ground floor living room and first floor storage room will become additional HMO rooms with ensuite bathrooms. Application includes details of 3 timber bin stores and 4 timber cycle stores for future occupants.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a semi-detached property in Maidstone’s urban area, with a small front garden and a south-facing rear garden.

“The site is in Maidstone urban area on the south side of Tonbridge Road and to the west of Bower Lane.”

“The site is occupied by a semi-detached property with red brick facades and a stone plinth around the front bay window. The property has a small front garden with dwarf brick wall and a rear south facing garden.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier approvals covered a rear extension and a six-person HMO; a seven-person HMO application was pending consideration in the report.

“24/503535/PNEXT Prior notification for a proposed single storey rear extension which: A) Extends by 6 metres beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling. B) maximum height of 3.4 metres from the natural ground level. C) height of 3 metres at the eaves from the natural ground level. Prior Approval Granted 08.10.2024”

“25/500497/LAWPRO Lawful Development Certificate for proposed hip-to-gable extension with 2no. roof lights, 2no. rear and side dormer extensions, removal of 2no. chimneys, change of fenestration, single storey rear extension (approved under prior approval ref: 24/503535/PNEXT) and conversion of dwelling into a 6- bedroom 6 person HMO (Class C4). Approved 07.04.2025”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the location was sustainable and the effects on neighbours, accommodation, appearance, parking and highways were acceptable.

“RECOMMENDATION: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to planning conditions…”

“SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION: • Sustainable location • Acceptable in terms of neighbour amenity, standard of accommodation, visual amenity, impact upon parking and the wider highway network. • The benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm when carrying out a planning balance and available information on the council’s housing land supply position lends further weight to the positive recommendation.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillors Harper and Milham, as visiting members, and the applicant addressed the meeting.

The committee debate

Members were advised that refusing on HMO sandwiching and concentration grounds could risk appeal costs against the council.

“During the discussion, the Head of Planning and Economic Development advised the Committee that if it agreed to refuse the application on the grounds of HMO sandwiching and concentration, there was a risk of costs being awarded against the Council at appeal.”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee refused permission because intensification and the high number of HMOs locally were considered harmful to local character and increased on-street parking demand.

“Contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Economic Development, the Committee agreed to refuse permission. In making this decision, Members considered that intensification of the current use and the high number of all HMOs in the local area is detrimental to the character of the local area including additional on-street parking demand.”

“RESOLVED: That permission be refused for the reason outlined above and that delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning and Economic Development to add the relevant local and national policies.”

Minutes