Four-room small HMO at 15 Surrey Grove, Carshalton

What was proposed

The application sought to convert a three-bedroom home into a four-room small HMO, with a rear extension and changed front fenestration.

“The application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the property from Class C3 (residential) to Class C4 (small HMO) to provide 4 bedrooms including the erection of a single storey rear extension and alteration to the ground floor front fenestration.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The property is a two-storey semi-detached home in a mainly residential area of similar semi-detached houses, with poor public transport access.

“The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and contains semi-detached properties of broadly similar design and form. Most of the properties have previously been extended with dormers and one and two storey extensions of varying designs and sizes.”

“The application site is located in an area with a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) of 1b which represents a very poor public transport accessibility and the site is not located within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).”

Officer report

Earlier planning advice

There was no planning history, while pre-application advice said the proposed development would comply with relevant policies and be supported by officers.

“PRE2025/00030 – Change of use from Class C3 (Residential) to Class C4 (Small HMO) and a single storey rear extension.”

“The applicant was advised that the proposed development as indicated in the plans submitted would comply with relevant policies and any formal planning application to that effect would be supported by officers.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would provide housing, fit the local context, protect neighbours and provide acceptable accommodation, parking and highway arrangements.

“The proposed development is acceptable in land use terms as it would provide a range of different housing types to meet the needs of people living in the borough.”

“The proposed extension and the alterations to fenestration would integrate well within the site and the resulting building would respect the local context of the site and would not result in visual harm to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Forty-six objections raised concerns including parking, antisocial behaviour, character, noise, loss of family housing, waste and future HMO conversions; consultees generally raised no objection.

“In addition, the Council’s Highways Team has received the application and has raised no objection. Anti Social Behaviour / crime The proposal would lead to anti-social behaviour and crime There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed 4 room HMO is likely to lead to anti-social behavior and crime within the locality. Character and appearance The proposal would harm the character of the area.”

“Impact on Neighbours The proposal would lead to noise and other disturbances in the area. An HMO is a different type of accommodation but functions and operates within the realms of a single family dwellinghouse. However, given that the proposal would result in the creation of an additional bedroom at the site, any potential impact from the additional bedroom would not be significant within the context.”

Officer report

Members’ concerns

Members questioned the room sizes, possible unauthorised changes, parking pressure and the effect of creating an HMO among small family homes.

“Members clarified the room layout in the application, which showed four bedrooms each with a double bed, and only the kitchen as a communal area and suggested the space in each room may not be sufficient for two occupants. The application would alter the property from a 3 bed house to a 4 bed HMO, in an area of small, 3 bedroom, family homes, without ensuites.”

“Members suggested that there were parking issues in the location, the road was narrow, and overspill parking from other areas created additional pressure.”

Minutes

Who spoke

An objector spoke for local residents, raising concerns about parking, noise, antisocial behaviour, internal alterations and the area’s existing HMOs; the applicant replied.

Committee debate

Members discussed the objections, noise near a neighbouring property, parking stress, family-home loss and the site’s location outside an intensification area.

“In debate members discussed there had been 51 objections, the majority from addresses within close proximity to the property. The ground floor front room would become a bedroom, which would be close to the communal kitchen and could create noise to the adjoining neighbouring property. The area was already known to have parking concerns as it had had recent consultations and was observed to be used as overspill parking from the nearby CPZ area.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission because it found harm from losing a family dwelling, noise and refuse impacts, and increased on-street parking pressure.

“To refuse Planning permission as the proposal would create a loss of a single family dwelling, which is not a detached property and is located outside of an area for intensification. The proposal was therefore contrary to policy 10 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018. The proposed development would result in unreasonable levels of noise, refuse and litter accumulation to the detriment of neighbouring occupiers.”

“REFUSE planning permission as the proposal would create a loss of a single family dwelling, which is not a detached property and is located outside of an area for intensification. The proposal was therefore contrary to policy 10 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018. The proposed development would result in unreasonable levels of noise, refuse and litter accumulation to the detriment of neighbouring occupiers.”

Minutes