The Royal Borough of Greenwich Local Planning Committee met to discuss several planning applications, including changes of use for properties to houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), and the amalgamation of commercial units. Councillors approved two HMO applications with amendments, approved one HMO application, and deferred a decision on the amalgamation of two commercial units for a site visit.

Montbell Road HMO Application Refused

Councillors voted to refuse the application for a change of use from a single dwelling house to a four-bed, four-person HMO at 16 Montbell Road, Eltham. The proposal had received 116 objections, including from Councillor Matt Hartley, Councillor Roger Tester and Clive Efford MP¹. The planning officer, Sam, explained that the application was an amended resubmission of a previously refused application for an eight-bed HMO, which was dismissed at appeal. Although conversions of single-family homes to HMOs are generally acceptable, and the council's strategy doesn't restrict the loss of family housing or HMO over-concentration, this application was contentious due to concerns about noise and parking.

Councillor Greenwell raised concerns about waste management, questioning whether the existing three bins would be sufficient for four unrelated adults. She also sought clarification on the status of a pending application for an eight-bedroom HMO at the same property. Sam clarified that each application is assessed on its own merits and that if the four-bed HMO was approved, permitted development rights² would be removed, meaning any future extensions would require planning permission. Councillor Hartley argued that the noise and parking impacts were unacceptable, referencing the proximity of 99 Montbell Road, which he described as an absolutely disastrous HMO for the community . He stated that residents felt it was futile to object, as the applicant would continue submitting applications until an eight-unit HMO was approved. Councillor Hartley also disputed the accuracy of the applicant's parking survey, stating that it failed to account for commuter parking and the proximity of the New Eltham controlled parking zone (CPZ).

Councillor Tester also opposed the application, citing unacceptable noise pollution and parking stress. Tudor and Patricia Wright, residents of 14 Montbell Road, argued that the number of occupants in the HMO couldn't be limited to four, external noise couldn't be mitigated, and unrelated strangers would create more noise than a family. They also highlighted the drum effect of the connected buildings, which would amplify noise transmission.

Kyron Byrne, a resident of 12 Montbell Road, spoke of the detrimental impact of repeated applications on residents' mental health and well-being, accusing the applicant of employing a calculated strategy to wear down the community. Stuart Lowe focused on the flawed parking survey, arguing that it misrepresented available parking capacity and ignored the impact of commuter parking. Michael Hooper raised concerns about the applicant's intentions, citing their stated commitment to achieving the maximum for your project and pushing limits to get projects approved.

Josh Myers, a town planner representing the applicant, argued that the proposal complied with planning policy, made efficient use of housing stock, and addressed previous concerns by halving the occupancy. He stated that a robust management plan would be secured by condition to address concerns about noise and tenant behaviour.

Councillors expressed concerns about the applicant's intentions, the impact on residents' amenity, and the limited conditions available to mitigate potential issues. Councillor Dillon stated he was a bit upset with some of the stuff that's been revealed from your website by Mr. Hooper because realistically that makes our life very very difficult when you as a company seem to think that you can sort of run rings around us or attempt to run rings out around us and try and squeeze us . Ultimately, the committee voted to refuse the application, with two in favour of the officer's recommendation and one against.

Admaston Road HMO Approved with Amended Conditions

Councillors voted to approve the application for a change of use from a single-family dwelling to a five-person HMO at 49 Admaston Road, Plumstead, subject to the removal of a proposed bicycle ramp inside the property and a condition requiring a replacement tree.

The planning officer, Dominic Harris, stated that the proposal was in accordance with relevant policies and would bring a vacant dwelling back into use. The application included the construction of a rear dormer and provision of cycle and refuge storage. A parking survey indicated sufficient capacity in the surrounding area.

Councillor Greenwell raised concerns about the practicality and safety of the proposed bicycle ramps inside the narrow hallway, as well as the loss of a tree in the rear garden. Russell Underwood, a local resident, argued that the constantly changing waste management plan was inadequate and that the parking survey was flawed. Angela Chung highlighted safety issues related to storing bikes inside the property and raised concerns about noise pollution and strain on local infrastructure.

Joel Stern, the applicant, stated that the bicycle ramp was included at the recommendation of the council's highways officer and that the waste management plan had been revised based on feedback. He also stated that a replacement tree would be planted.

Councillors agreed that the bicycle ramp posed a safety hazard and should be removed. They also supported the condition requiring a replacement tree to mitigate the loss of green space.

Bostall Lane HMO Approved with Additional Conditions

Councillors voted to approve the application for a change of use from an existing dwelling to a six-bed, six-person HMO at 31 Bostall Lane, Abbey Wood, with the addition of conditions relating to car-free development and waste management.

Dominic Harris, the planning officer, stated that the proposal was in accordance with relevant policies and included the construction of a single-storey rear extension, a rear infill extension, an L-shaped rear dormer, and provision of cycle and refuse storage. A parking survey indicated sufficient capacity in the surrounding area, and the site is located within a controlled parking zone.

Councillor Greenwell requested more clarity on the waste management plan, questioning where five bins would be located in the front garden. She also raised concerns about cyclists having to take their bikes through the house. Meryl Lorical, a resident of 33 Bostall Lane, echoed concerns about the bikes going through the house and the impact on parking.

Josh Myers, representing the applicant, stated that they were working with officers to address concerns about waste management and that the cycle storage was in accordance with the London Plan standards.

Councillors agreed to add a condition requiring car-free development, meaning none of the occupants would be eligible for parking permits. They also supported tightening the condition related to waste management to ensure adequate and secure bin storage without negatively impacting the streetscape.

Creek Road Commercial Units Decision Deferred for Site Visit

Councillors voted to defer a decision on the application for the amalgamation of two ground-floor commercial units at 304-308 Creek Road, Deptford, to allow for a site visit.

Courtney Muir, the planning officer, stated that the proposal involved amalgamating two existing commercial units into a single unit. The application came before the committee due to a call-in from Councillor O'Byrne Mulligan and Councillor Anning, raising concerns about the impact on neighbouring amenity and accessibility.

Councillor O'Byrne Mulligan argued that the proposed location of the goods entrance would negatively impact residents' amenity and accessibility, particularly for those with limited mobility. She suggested that the applicant consider relocating the goods entrance or revising the internal plans. Jacoma Nagy, a resident of Shamrock House, raised concerns about fire safety and accessibility, stating that the proposed delivery arrangements would obstruct the only means of escape for residents.

Daniel Botten, a planning agent representing Tesco, stated that the amalgamation was necessary to improve the store's layout and provide adequate back-of-house space. He argued that the proposed delivery arrangements were reasonable and that alternative options had been considered.

Councillors expressed concerns about pedestrian accessibility and the potential impact on residents. They agreed that a site visit was necessary to better understand the issues and assess the potential impact of the proposal.