Nine-bedroom HMO at 37 Longfield Avenue, Hackbridge

What was proposed

Two bedrooms would be added to the existing seven-bedroom HMO, creating nine bedrooms with en-suite facilities, refuse and cycle storage, and front landscaping.

“The application seeks planning permission for the provision of two additional bedrooms to an existing HMO. The existing HMO has seven bedspaces, the proposal therefore seeks permission for a nine bedroom HMO.”

“Refuse and cycle storage would be provided to the front of the property. Soft landscaping would be provided along the front boundary.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a two-storey semi-detached HMO with front parking, rear patio space, and surrounding two-storey family homes.

“The application site is a two storey semi-detached seven bedroom HMO. The property has been extended to the side and rear at two storey level, and the loft has been converted including the formation of a rear dormer (planning history listed at para 3.9 to 3.13).”

“The application site has off-street car parking to the front of the property on an area of hardstanding accessed via an existing dropped kerb from Longfield Avenue. Outdoor amenity space is provided to the rear comprising a patio.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered extensions, an outbuilding and conversion to an HMO, followed by a refused and then granted certificate for a seven-person larger HMO.

“DM2024/01753 - A Lawful Development Certificate was REFUSED on 18th February 2025 for Change of use from Class C4 (Small HMO) to Class Sui Generis (Larger HMO).”

“DM2025/00277 - A Lawful Development Certificate was GRANTED on 24th March 2025 for Change of use from Class C4 (Small HMO) to Class Sui Generis (Larger HMO) to provide 7 person HMO.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended permission with a legal agreement preventing future occupants from obtaining parking permits.

“To GRANT planning permission, subject to a S106 Legal Agreement to prevent future occupants from attaining parking permits.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal acceptable in principle, suitably designed, adequately spacious, and unlikely to harm neighbours, parking, highways, trees, biodiversity or flood risk.

“The only external alterations relate to the installation of refuse and cycle storage, and soft landscaping improvements to the front boundary, and it is considered that the design of the proposal is acceptable and would not cause harm to the character of the existing property or street scene.”

“The proposal would not adversely impact on trees, biodiversity or increase the risk of flooding at the site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor raised concerns about communal space, parking, noise, antisocial behaviour, HMO intensification and accommodation quality; the applicant supported the proposal.

What members debated

Members discussed staged applications, enforcement of the nine-person limit, parking permits, communal space, noise and the effect on neighbours.

“In response to a question regarding disturbance to neighbours, the Ward Councillor noted that losing the ground floor reception and dining room, which are both on the detached side of the property, would intensify activities in the remaining communal kitchen and living room, increasing noise and impact on the adjoining property.”

“The committee questioned the loss of communal space for the current occupants. The applicant advised that each bedroom is spacious and exceeds the ten square meter requirement, and that the remaining communal space is seven square meters above the required space for nine occupants, which is believed to compensate for the loss of the ground floor reception and dining room.”

Minutes

The votes

Members unanimously voted against the officers’ recommendation, then unanimously supported a motion to refuse permission.

“A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4.”

“Planning Committee 6 August 2025 5 APPLICATION NO. DM2025/00431, 37 Longfield Avenue, Hackbridge SM6 7AZ (Committee Report) A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was refused because removing the reception and dining rooms would intensify use of the only remaining communal room, harming residents and a neighbouring property.

“RESOLVED: To REFUSE planning permission as the loss of the reception room and dining room, to accommodate additional bedrooms, would result in unacceptable intensification of use of the only remaining communal room to the detriment of residents amenity and neighbouring amenity for number 35 Longfield Avenue, which is contrary to policies 10 and 29 of the Local Plan.”

Minutes