The Planning Committee has decided to refuse planning permission for the expansion of a House in Multiple Occupation from seven to nine bedrooms, citing concerns about loss of communal space and potential impact on residents and neighbors.

URL: https://moderngov.sutton.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4287

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: The application sought planning permission for the provision of two additional bedrooms to an existing House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The existing HMO has seven bedspaces, the proposal therefore sought permission for a nine bedroom HMO.   The application was referred to the Planning Committee because the proposal has received over 10 letters of objection contrary to the recommendation to grant planning permission, and the application had been de-delegated by Councillor Sheldon Vestey.   The Senior Planning Officer presented the officers’ report.   A question was raised regarding the process of applying in stages from class C3 (residential) to class C4 (three-bed HMO) to then to Class Sui Generis (larger seven-bed HMO) and finally to a nine-bed HMO over the course of five months, asking what scrutiny was avoided compared to an initial application for a nine-bed HMO. Officers explained that extensions to larger HMOs are assessed against Policy 10, which consists of six different criteria. If the application had been for a new nine-bed HMO from a single-family dwelling, it would be assessed against Policy 10C, primarily concerning the concentration of HMOs within 100 meters. Officers noted that more scrutiny is, in a way, given to an extension of a HMO rather than a new HMO.   Members questioned if this was a retrospective planning application, given that the property currently holds a licence for a nine-bed HMO, issued on 18 March 2025. Officers clarified that the current legal planning use for the site was as a seven-bed HMO, and the new planning application for a nine-bed HMO was intended to align the planning permission with the existing license.   Members questioned how a nine occupant limit would be enforced on the HMO, and outlined concerns regarding the possibility of the property housing multiple occupants per room, thereby increasing the fire risk. Officers explained that enforcement relies on reports of breaches, which would trigger multi-department investigations involving planning and licensing, both of which are prosecutable.   In response to a question, officers advised that there were currently no parking permits registered to the property, and that the planning permission for a nine-bed HMO would be subject to a S106 Legal Agreement to prevent all occupants from attaining parking permits.   Officers confirmed that the Council’s Waste Team has raised no objections to the application as the proposed refuse provision is in line with expected standards.   Councillor Dave Tchil, Ward Councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.   The principal issues raised by the Ward Councillor included: ·         That we should avoid setting a precedent for converting semi-detached houses into large Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) within urban areas ·         The wellbeing of current occupants is jeopardized by the loss of communal living space, as it is crucial for them to have areas for social connection rather than being confined to their rooms ·         That there is inadequate cycle parking provided as per the requirements ·         The residents currently occupying the HMO are cared for by an agency. Carers frequently visit the HMO occupants, and their vehicles often occupy street parking spaces throughout the day ·         There have been reports of antisocial behaviour in regards to the care needs of current residents ·         In addition to the one HMO within 100m of the property mentioned in the report, there are currently two others being built, contributing to over-intensification of HMOs in the locality ·         That residents are not against HMOs, but that the application does not provide the high quality rooms that these residents deserve   In response to a question regarding disturbance to neighbours, the Ward Councillor noted that losing the ground floor reception and dining room, which are both on the detached side of the property, would intensify activities in the remaining communal kitchen and living room, increasing noise and impact on the adjoining property. Committee members discussed how the reduction in amenity space would impact the current seven occupants, confining them to the open kitchen living room area.   In response to further questions, the Ward Councillor clarified that there were a significant number of carers visiting the property throughout the day. It was suggested that carers may have a universal badge to park within the borough. The Ward Councillor further noted that there had been reports of antisocial behaviour linked to the HMO's activities.   Ghlenn Perry Capuyan, applicant, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.   The principal issues raised by the applicant included: ·         The application sought planning permission for the provision of two additional bedrooms to an existing HMO, bringing the total number of bedrooms from seven to nine ·         The property has been built to a high standard and the bedrooms are spacious ·         That the application had been developed in consultation with the Planning, Highways and Waste Management teams to ensure that the proposed scheme is compliant ·         Although the property has a license for a nine-bed HMO, the additional two bedrooms will remain unoccupied until planning permission is granted for a nine-bedroom HMO ·         That all rooms in the property meet fire safety regulations ·         The council’s Waste Management Team have reviewed the refuse provision, which is in line with expected standards ·         The council’s Highway Officer has raised no objection to the proposed cycle storage to provide 9 cycle parking spaces ·         That the applicant is willing to enter the S106 Legal Agreement to prevent all occupants from attaining parking permits as the property is a short walk from Hackbridge railway station, and has a number of bus routes nearby ·         The property is leased to a CQC regulated provider who provides accommodation to adults with learning difficulties. Each occupant has their own tenancy agreement and lives independently ·         The property does not operate with on-site staff. The level of support is low and primarily consists of periodic check-ins and assistance with life skills ·         This type of accommodation is socially valuable, reducing reliance on the NHS and council services ·         The proposal aligns with Sutton’s housing strategy, making more efficient use of existing stock and offering flexible affordable housing   In response to a question, the applicant outlined the pre-application advice received and explained that the initial plan to lease the property as a standard house proved financially unviable, leading to the decision to move into a HMO scheme. Members questioned the rationale behind applying for a HMO in stages rather than applying for all nine bedrooms at once. The applicant explained that this approach was taken to manage financial risk as an outright application to convert a residential property into a nine-bed HMO was perceived to carry more planning risk. The applicant confirmed that the planning permission would be for 9 occupants, one per room.   The committee questioned the loss of communal space for the current occupants. The applicant advised that each bedroom is spacious and exceeds the ten square meter requirement, and that the remaining communal space is seven square meters above the required space for nine occupants, which is believed to compensate for the loss of the ground floor reception and dining room.   In response to a question, the applicant confirmed the healthcare provider looks after the occupants of the property, and is also responsible for managing the physical state of the building and handling any complaints. The applicant confirmed that they had not received any complaints so far. Officers confirmed that no complaints had been received by the council’s Environmental Health team.   Officers confirmed that the property would remain a legal HMO even if the contract with the healthcare provider ended.   A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4.   Members discussed possible reasons for refusal such as: ·         Lack of amenity space for nine occupants ·         Although the proposed bedrooms are on the non-adjoining side of the property, losing the communal space on the non-adjoining side would intensify activities in the communal spaces on the adjoining side of the property, resulting in intensified noise for neighbours ·         Loss of amenity space for existing occupants   Councillor Luke Taylor proposed the following motion:   1.    to refuse planning permission as the loss of the reception room and dining room, to accommodate additional bedrooms, would result in unacceptable intensification of use of the only remaining communal room to the detriment of residents amenity and neighboring amenity for number 35 Longfield Avenue, which is contrary to policies 10 and 29 of the Local Plan.   This was seconded by Councillor Tony Shields and voted on.   RESOLVED: To REFUSE planning permission    

Date of Decision: August 6, 2025