Six-room small HMO at 69 Egmont Road, Sutton

What was proposed

The application sought to change the property from a dwelling house to a six-room small house in multiple occupation.

“The application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the property from Class C3 (Dwelling House) to Class C4 (Small House of Multiple Occupation (HMO)) to provide 6 rooms.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The property is a large three-storey semi-detached house with one parking space, a garage, a garden and nearby residential properties.

“The application property is a large, 8 bedroom semi-detached, three storey dwellinghouse with a small basement, located on the northern side of Egmont Road. The property has existing off street parking to the front for one car, accessed from an existing dropped kerb, a garage to the side and a large private rear garden. At the time that this application was made, the property was in a very poor state of repair and uninhabited.”

“The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, comprising terraced and semi-detached dwellings of varying ages and styles. There are also blocks of flatted development within the surrounding area.”

Officer report

Earlier use and applications

The property had previously been arranged as an unlicensed eight-bedroom HMO, while two rear-extension applications were refused and the adjoining property has HMO permission.

“DM2022/00828 and DM2022/02143, both Prior Approval applications for a single storey rear extension. Both of these applications were refused due to the impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of neighbouring properties and failure to comply with the criteria for Prior Approval applications.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval with conditions and a legal agreement, considering the housing, design, amenity and highway effects acceptable.

“To GRANT planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix B and a Section 106 agreement (with the obligations secured outlined at 3.2) by 5th January 2026, or a later date as agreed in writing by the Strategic Director of Environment, Housing and Neighbourhoods.”

“The proposal is acceptable in land use terms as it would enable the renovation of the property and delivery of residential housing of a certain tenure within a sustainable location. Report Page 1”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local objector spoke on behalf of residents, challenging the separate treatment of the properties, the proposed use and the possible number of occupants.

What members debated

Members discussed HMO concentration, neighbour amenity, parking, public transport, the adjoining HMO and whether the accommodation would provide an adequate standard of living.

“Planning Committee 1 October 2025 5 Members expressed concerns regarding the high concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in the area. Officers confirmed that HMOs currently represent less than 20% of properties, noting that exceeding this figure within a 100-meter radius would constitute over-intensification according to policy.”

“Discussion also covered the application's proximity to an existing 8-bed HMO, which was not part of the current proposal. The essential need for HMOs and issues related to the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 2 were further explored. Members inquired about the nearest public transport links, identifying Belmont station and the 280 bus route into the city centre, with a 16 minute walk to the station.”

Minutes

The committee decision

The committee refused permission because the proposal was considered an over-concentrated HMO causing noise and disturbance, and would pressure on-street parking without a completed legal agreement.

“Without evidence to the contrary, it is considered that the proposal would place unacceptable pressure on the on-street parking situation at the site by reason of the absence of a completed S106 legal agreement to secure the prohibition of the future occupiers from obtaining residents car parking permits. As such, the application would be contrary to Policy T6.1 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy 37 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.”

“Without evidence to the contrary, it is considered that the proposal would place unacceptable pressure on the on-street parking situation at the site by reason of the absence of a completed Section 106 legal agreement to secure the prohibition of the future occupiers from obtaining residents car parking permits. As such, the application would be contrary to Policy T6.1 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy 37 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.”

Minutes