Agenda item

Gillingham South Ward

Change of use from a C3 dwellinghouse to a 7-person sui generis HMO.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from a C3 dwellinghouse to a 7-person sui generis house of multiple occupation (HMO).

The Senior Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which included a map and supporting figures which identified surrounding land-uses along an approximate 150-metre stretch of Paget Street. 

He also advised that, within a 500-metre radius, there were 57 HMOs which represented approximately 3% of the housing stock, which was not considered an overconcentration of HMOs in the area.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor McDonald addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and raised the following concerns:

• He stated that he was speaking against this application, whilst recognising the need for HMOs but believed that Paget Street had reached a point where the cumulative impact and number of HMOs in the street was becoming excessive.
• The original proposal had reduced incrementally from 9 bedrooms (refused in December 2025), to 8 bedrooms (refused in June 2026) and was now proposed for 7 bedrooms arguing that reducing the number of occupants one at a time did not address the suitability of the property or location.
• Referring to the supplementary agenda advice sheet, he noted that 3 of 23 properties within 150 metres were identified as non-family dwellings (13%) and questioned how this could be considered acceptable if 10% was regarded as the point of which saturation became a concern.
• Concerns were raised about the consistency of methodology used between applications and questioned why a 150-metre survey area had been used in this case when a 200-metre had been used elsewhere.
• He stated that the proposal would result in the loss of another family home and that a 7-person HMO, occupied by unrelated adults with different lifestyles and working patterns, could have a greater impact on neighbouring residents than a traditional family dwelling.
• He expressed concern that existing parking pressures on Paget Street could be intensified by the development.  
• He concluded that, whilst Gillingham required family homes, Members should consider whether this represented the right property, in the right location, and at the appropriate intensity of use. 

The Committee discussed the planning application, noting the officer’s presentation and the concerns raised by the Ward Councillor. Members acknowledged that previous proposals for a 9-person HMO and an 8-person HMO had both been refused, and expressed concern that, despite the reduction to a 7-person HMO, the development would still result in increased parking demand, additional waste generation and further pressure on local infrastructure. 

The Committee then voted on the officers’ recommendation to approve the planning application, which was lost. Members then considered reasons for refusal and expressed concerns regarding the intensified use of the property, including increased comings and goings associated with a large HMO, together with the loss of a family home with the area.

The Senior Planner advised Members that the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) mitigation contribution referred to in the report had not yet been paid.   

Decision:      

Refused on the grounds of the scale and intensity of the proposed use,

together with the site's location within a closely-knit residential terrace with

shared party walls, the proposal would result in increased noise, disturbance,

comings and goings and general activity that would erode the existing

conditions of adjoining residential amenity and nearby occupiers. As such, the

proposal would be contrary to Policies BNE2 and H7 of the Medway Local

Plan (2003), Policy T8 of the Submitted (Regulation 22) Medway Local Plan

2041 (December 2025), and paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy

Framework (2024).

The application failed to address the impact of the proposal on the Special Protection Areas of the Thames Estuary and Marshes and the Medway Estuary and Marshes through either the submission of details to allow the undertaking of an Appropriate Assessment or via a contribution towards strategic mitigation measures. In the absence of such information or contribution, the proposal failed to comply with the requirement of the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 and was contrary to Policies S6 and BNE35 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and paragraphs 193 and 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).