Agenda item

Gillingham South Ward

Change of use from Class C3 to Class C4 as a small HMO for up to 6 occupants, with minor internal alterations cycle store to rear and bin stores to front.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from Class C3 to Class C4 as a small house of multiple occupation HMO for up to 6 occupants, with minor internal alterations cycle store to rear and bin stores to front.

The Senior Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which included a land use assessment map.

Also, within the supplementary agenda, there was a correction to page 73 of the agenda which incorrectly referred to Watling Ward and should instead refer to Gillingham South Ward.

The Senior Planner further explained that the density map identified HMOs within a 500-metre radius of the application site and that the land use assessment demonstrated that there were five HMOs within a 200-metre stretch of road, which represented 6.3% of all properties in that area. This was not considered to constitute an overconcentration of HMOs.

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

• Whilst recognising the important role HMOs played in meeting housing needs, concern was expressed about the continued loss of family homes in Gillingham, particularly as the property was currently a three-bedroom house that would be difficult to return to family use once converted.
• Reference was made to the Article 4 Direction, which was introduced to provide greater planning control over HMO development and to ensure that the cumulative impacts of such conversions were properly considered.
• Concerns were raised regarding parking pressures, as the property would not provide any off-street parking and the surrounding area already experienced high levels of parking demand.
• It was argued that occupation by six unrelated adults could generate different travel and parking patterns from those of a single household, placing additional pressure on local roads and amenities.
• The assessment of HMO concentration in the area was questioned, with concern expressed that the number of registered HMOs may not fully reflect the extent of HMO accommodation locally.
• It was considered that the gradual conversion of family homes into HMOs could have a cumulative impact on the character of the area, local amenity and the balance of housing stock.
• Whilst acknowledging the need for HMO accommodation, she urged Members to consider whether the conversion of this family home into a six-person HMO was not appropriate in this location and to refuse planning permission.

The Committee considered the planning application and noted the points raised by the Ward Councillor. Members expressed concern regarding the loss of another family home, the potential for increased noise and disturbance, and the comings and goings of six unrelated adult occupants, including the possibility of activity occurring at unsocial hours.

Members noted that policy sought to retain properties under 120 square metres as family homes and observed that this property measured 115 square metres.

The Senior Planner confirmed that all proposed bedrooms would exceed the minimum sizes set out in the Nationally Described Space Standards. It was also confirmed that waste storage would be located at the front of the property.

In response to concerns regarding parking, the Senior Planner confirmed that a Parking Management Plan would be secured to mitigate parking pressures through restrictions on the number of parking permits issued to the property. The Highways Consultant advised that, during the evening, parking was available outside the single yellow line restrictions and that the side of the road of the property was not within the Controlled Parking Zone.

The Service Manager - Development Management explained that the Article 4 Direction had been approved by Cabinet in January 2026 for seven wards within Medway, including Gillingham South Ward, and reiterated that each planning application must be determined on its own merits.

Members questioned the accuracy of the information provided regarding the number of properties converted to flats, HMOs or supported living accommodation, suggesting that not all such properties were formalised through the need for planning permission and were not part of the records. 

Members further noted that there were currently 747 families on Medway’s housing waiting list and expressed concern that the loss of a family home would not assist in addressing this local housing need. 

The Committee voted on the officers’ recommendation to approve the planning application, which was lost.

Members then considered reasons for refusal. Concern was expressed that the change of use from a family dwelling comprising one double and one single bedroom to a six-person HMO occupied by unrelated individuals would result in increased noise and disturbance, to the detriment of the amenities of neighbouring residents. Members also raised concern regarding parking, noting that parking provision in the surrounding area was already under pressure.

In response to a question, the Highways Consultant and Service Manager - Development Management advised that should parking pressures form part of a reasons for refusal, supporting evidence would be required, including an independent parking survey demonstrating existing parking stress and potential impact of additional parking demand on the free flow of traffic. There was not this evidence and, therefore, the Service Manager - Development Management advised this would not be a reason for refusal that could be justified. 

The Service Manager - Development Management reminded Members that, at a previous Planning Committee, it had been agreed that the 500-metre radius would be used to demonstrate the concentration of HMOs in the surrounding area. It was noted, that in some subsequent planning applications, information had also been provided using a 200-metre stretch of road.

Members noted that Gillingham South Ward had the highest concentration of HMOs within Medway and expressed concern that the continued loss of family homes reduced opportunities for first time buyers to enter the housing market.

The Service Manager - Development Management advised that waste management arrangements for refuse storage and collection would be addressed under the recommended Waste Management Plan condition and advised that it would not be a justified reason for refusal. 

Decision:      

Refused for the following reasons:

1    The application property measured less than 120 square metres internally and, therefore, does not meet the threshold for subdivision resulting in 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, is, 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, 6-person HMO would not be considered acceptable.

2    The change of use from a two bedroom dwelling to a 6-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).