Agenda item

Gillingham South Ward

Retrospective change of use from residential dwelling (Class C3) to a 5-bedroom 5-person house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Class C4).

Discussion:

Members were reminded that this planning application had been deferred from the previous meeting for more information about the Waste Management arrangements and Plan and Parking Management Plan.

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for a retrospective change of use from residential dwelling (Class C3) to a 5-bedroom 5-person house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Class C4).

The Senior Planner brought Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which proposed amendments to conditions 4, 5 and 6, had an update to the Appraisal section in the agenda and included a land use assessment map. He informed Members that the Waste Management Storage plan and Parking Management Plan had been submitted by the applicant.  

The Senior Planner further explained that the density map identified the breakdown of uses found through both a search of the planning history, liaison with Private Sector Housing colleagues and from a walking survey. In terms of non C3 uses there were no care homes or hostels identified, however, 3 houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) were identified. There were a number of flats in the area, as set out in the supplementary agenda, however, they were within a C3 residential use and, therefore, the same use class as all the other dwellings. The percentage of non C3 residential uses within Copenhagen Road was 2.91% and was not considered to be an overconcentration.

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

·       His objections were not against HMOs in principle but the concentration and cumulative impact and loss of family homes in the road. Immediately next door had been approved as a 5-bedroom HMO the previous month and approval of this application would result in two adjacent HMOs. He therefore did not agree that this would not constitute clustering or overconcentration.

·       Out of 7 houses, if this were approved, two would be HMOs, two were converted to flats and that would leave only three out of seven properties as conventional family homes. This would have an impact on the community and change the balance and character of the residential street.

·       He advised that Policy H7, required consideration of character and impact on residential amenity and whether it was appropriate for conversion. He did not believe that approving an HMO next door could be justification for approving this one.

·       He advised that Policy T8 stated that the application should not adversely affect or contribute to overprovision particularly in areas of HMO concentration.

·       The area was subject to Article 4 Direction, which removed permitted development rights and the purpose must include prevention. He acknowledged that this was a retrospective application and was already an HMO, and he wished no ill will to those occupants but this was about the long term use of the property and cumulative impact.

The Committee discussed the planning application noting the concerns outlined and the points raised by the Ward Councillor. 

The Committee discussed the application and the need for HMOs, clustering,  the impact on the character of the street scene, parking implications and the need for family homes.

The Chief Planning Officer clarified that this was a retrospective application because a Lawful Development Certificate had been applied for before the introduction of the Article 4 Direction, but was caught by the Article 4 Direction coming in before the property was due to be occupied. All applicants of Lawful Development Certificates had been written to on 22 January 2026 advising them of the need to apply for planning permission. There had been no intention behind it being retrospective.

In relation to the planning balance, the Chief Planning Officer advised that regarding Policies H7 and T8, the relevant criteria had been identified and assessed within the officer’s report, including matters such as clustering and the character of the area. These were legitimate considerations that should be weighted in the overall planning balance. He further advised that officers were currently working on supplementary guidance alongside the Local Plan to provide greater clarity on the interpretation of terms such as "clustering". With regard to over proliferation, the threshold of 10% had not been reached in this case.

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

Councillor Gulvin requested that his vote in support of approving the application be recorded, in accordance with Council Rule 12.6.

Members then discussed refusing the application on the grounds that the proposal would result in an overconcentration of HMOs in the area, harming the balance and cohesion of the local area through the loss of a family dwelling, and a change that appeared uncharacteristic of the locality. Increased activity, and, the fact that the protected parking zone did not apply to Canterbury Street, and would push parking onto that street, and cumulative impact. It was agreed that the wording for the refusal would be drawn up by the Chief Planning Officer and agreed with the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and opposition spokespersons.

Decision:      

REFUSEDfor the reasons 1 to 3 as set out below:

1         The proposed change of use would result in the loss of a single-family dwellinghouse and its conversion to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) within an area where there is already a significant concentration of non-family dwellings in the immediate vicinity. The proposal would therefore contribute to an overconcentration of such uses, resulting in an overprovision of HMOs and an unacceptable imbalance in the local housing stock through the loss of family accommodation and change in the character of the immediate area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy T8 of the Submitted (Regulation 22) Medway Local Plan 2041 (December 2025).

2         The change of use from a three bedroom 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).

3         The proposed use as a 5 person House in Multiple Occupation would generate a greater level of parking demand than the existing three bedroom dwelling and in the absence of any parking provision would result in increased parking pressure and indiscriminate parking in an area of parking stress in an area of parking restrictions and in the adjacent Canterbury Street, which is outside the controlled parking zone but suffers from parking stress and would therefore be contrary to policies H7 of the Medway Local Plan (2003) and T8 of the Submitted (Regulation 22) Medway Local Plan 2041 (December 2025).