Agenda item

Ward

Ashford North and Stanwell South

Proposal

First floor rear extension to facilitate a Change of Use from a 6-person HMO (use Class C4) to a 7-person HMO (use Class Sui Generis)

Recommendation

Approve the application subject to conditions as set out in the recommendation section of the report (paragraphs 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3)

This item was considered at the carry-over meeting held on 27 August 2025

Description:

First floor rear extension to facilitate a change of use from a 6-person HMO (use Class C4) to a 7-person HMO (use Class SUI Generis)

Additional Information:

There was none.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Suzanne Gibbard spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

1.    Lack of a lawful vehicle crossover to allow vehicles to access the property so the two parking spaces referred to in the application should not be considered legitimate in planning terms

2.    Existing refuse arrangements are not sufficient to support the current level of occupancy so additional occupants would increase the unpleasant odours and hygiene issues arising from inadequate domestic waste and recycling bin provision 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, David Gutwirth (Dimensions Planning and Architecture) spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

1.    The existing 6-bedroom HMO has been in place for over a year

2.    The site has access to facilities and amenities within walking and cycling distance and good access to public transport

3.    Two new off-street parking spaces with EV charging which is an enhancement over the current position

4.    The proposed extension is policy compliant with regard to natural light

5.    There is no unacceptable impact on neighbours’ daylight or outlook

6.    Proposed conversation of outbuilding will provide a communal gym

7.    The new bedroom would be nearly triple the minimum standard for a single occupant

8.    This property has operated as an HMO for over 12 months with no complaints reported.

9.    The property provides much needed affordable accommodation in the borough

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor * Beatty  Burrell read out a statement on behalf of Councillor Geach, Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:

1.    Increase in on-road parking

2.    The potential presence of asbestos in the garage roof that may impact on the health of both the tenants and residents

3.    Previous work by the landlord resulted in significant damage to neighbouring residents’ properties including the drain on the highway collapsing due to the weight and size of the commercial vehicles used when the works were being carried out

4.    Concerns about the proposed new layout of the ground floor as it was felt that this would leave the potential for a further extension to be added subject to another planning application

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

1.    There is no drop down kerb so access to the driveway is limited

2.    Could the outbuilding be used as living accommodation

3.    Can an informative be added to ensure that the front garden is replace by permeable material

4.    Did Surrey Highways visit the site on different times of the day to ascertain whether there would be any negative impact on the on-street parking

5.    The garage roof could potentially contain asbestos

6.    Bedrooms are of a good quality

7.    Lack of adequate communal space

8.    More information required around how many rubbish and recycling bins would be provided

9.    On balance the property is overbearing

The Committee voted on the proposal as follows:

For: 3

Against: 9

Abstain: 1

The motion to approve the application FELL

It was proposed by Councillor Geraci and seconded by Council Woodward that the Local Planning Authority is minded to refuse the application as the development will not promote a high standard of amenity for occupants, as there will be no communal living area and removal of the second kitchen, and this will result in more intensive use and disturbance to neighbours due to the lack of on-site communal amenities. Furthermore, the additional occupant will likely increase the parking strain in the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies EN1 and CC3 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009, and the NPPF 2024.

A named vote was requested..

Decision:

The motion to refuse the application was carried for the following reason:

The application will not promote a high standard of amenity for occupants, as there will be no communal living area and removal of the second kitchen, and this will result in more intensive use and disturbance to neighbours due to the lack of on-site communal amenities. Furthermore, the additional occupant will likely increase the parking strain in the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies EN1 and CC3 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009, and the NPPF 2024.

*Amended by Planning Committee held 15 October 2025.