Agenda item

Gillingham South Ward

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Class C3) to 5-bedroom HMO (Class C4) with alterations to boundary wall and front elevation roof light.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from dwellinghouse (Class C3) to 5-bedroom HMO (Class C4) with alterations to boundary wall and front elevation roof light.

Members noted that the supplementary agenda advice sheet included a correction to the approved plans condition to ensure it referred to the recently submitted plans. The supplementary agenda advice sheet also included a map and supporting figures which identified the surrounding land uses along approximately 200-metre stretch of Shakespeare Road.  

The Senior Planner explained that the density map identified HMOs within a 500-metre radius of the application site. Although there were high number of HMOs in the wider area, very few were located in the immediate vicinity of the application site. The land use assessment demonstrated that no HMO’s had been identified along a 200-metre stretch of road. While one HMO was identified, it had not been registered on the desktop study. Consequently, the Senior Planner concluded that there were no HMOs clustering in the area.

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

• He recommended refusal of the application, stressing that he was not opposed to HMOs in principle, however, considered this proposal unacceptable.
• Concern was expressed that Gillingham South already had the highest concentration of HMOs in Medway and that the proposal would contribute to an over proliferation of such uses.
• He questioned the HMO evidence presented, noting discrepancies between the original assessment, the supplementary agenda advice sheet and the Article 4 checks.
• Objection was raised to the loss of a family home, highlighting that the property measured 121sqm and, therefore, exceeded the Council's 120sqm threshold for retention of family housing. This was just one square metre above the Council’s threshold.
• Reference was made to the number of families and children in temporary accommodation across Medway and that the loss of another family home was inappropriate.
• Concerns were raised regarding parking, as the property had no off-street parking, and it was considered that a Parking Management Plan and car-free tenancy agreements would not prevent residents, visitors or delivery drivers from generating parking demand.
• He also expressed concern that the proposed amenity space fell below the Council's standards, with the garden depth significantly less than normally required.
• In summary, the Member highlighted that there were 22 HMOs within 500 metres, four on Shakespeare Road, no off-street parking provision, insufficient amenity space and the loss of a viable family home and considered that the cumulative impact of these factors justified refusal of the application.

The Committee discussed the planning application noting the concerns raised by the Ward Councillor, particularly regarding the loss of another family home. 

The Senior Planner confirmed that the loft bedroom met the minimum size requirements for a single bedroom as set out in the Nationally Described Space Standards. A Member acknowledged that the applicant had amended the proposal in order to improve the living conditions for future residents.

Members discussed the pressures arising from homelessness across Medway and noted that HMOs could provide accommodation for people who might otherwise struggle to access housing, this would also include providing accommodation for individuals with mental health needs, learning difficulties and other supported needs.

The Service Manager - Development Management advised that the size of the garden, which was below the normal standard, would be unchanged regardless of whether the property was occupied as a family dwelling or as a HMO, and that gardens within Shakespeare Road were generally modest in size. He confirmed that the extension had been constructed under permitted development rights and was, therefore, not assessed with reference to planning policy.

A Member sought clarification on the methodology used by officers in assessing HMO concentrations, including the use of both a 500-metre radius or a 200-metre stretch of road.

The Committee voted on the officers’ recommendation to approve the planning application, which was lost. Members then discussed potential reasons for refusal, including the loss of a family dwelling and the impact of intensified occupation on the character of the area.

Concern was expressed that the proposed HMO would result in increased noise, disturbance, comings and goings and general activity to the detriment of neighbouring residents.

The Service Manager - Development Management acknowledged there was a high concentration of HMOs within Gillingham South Ward, however, he advised that there was no clustering of HMOs within the immediate vicinity of the application site. He also confirmed that the applicant had paid the SAMMS bird mitigation payment.

Following concerns raised regarding parking pressures, the Service Manager – Development Management advised that parking would be difficult to justify as a reason for refusal and noted that a condition requiring the submission and implementation of a Parking Management Plan was proposed as part of the recommendation.

Decision:      

Refused for the following reasons:

1    The application property was not considered too large to reasonably expect its occupation by a single family and, therefore, the loss of a dwelling that would be suitable as a single-family dwelling and was located in Gillingham South Ward, which was noted as already containing multiple HMOs, was, therefore, contrary to Policy H7 of the Medway Local Plan (2003) and Policy T8 of the Submitted (Regulation 22) Medway Local Plan 2041 (December 2025). As such, the principle of converting the existing property into a 5-bedroom, 5-person HMO would not be considered acceptable.

2    The change of use from a modest family dwelling to a 5-person HMO by reason of the scale and intensity of the proposed use 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 Policy P3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026).