The Local Planning Committee met on Tuesday 09 December 2025, approving three planning applications. These included the change of use of properties to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) at 16 Montbelle Road and 49 Admaston Road, and the amalgamation of two commercial units into a single unit at 304-308 Creek Road, which was deferred for a site visit.

16 Montbelle Road, Eltham, London, SE9 3PB - Ref: 25/2192/F

The committee granted full planning permission for the change of use of a single dwelling house to a four-bedroom, four-person HMO. This decision was made despite 118 objections from local residents, including from local councillors and the MP for Eltham & Chislehurst. Concerns raised by objectors primarily focused on potential noise impacts, parking stress, and the principle of converting family homes into HMOs.

Officers noted that while a previous application for an eight-bedroom HMO at the same site was refused due to noise concerns and dismissed at appeal, this current proposal for a four-person HMO is significantly scaled back. The appeal inspector had previously found the highway impacts acceptable for an eight-person HMO, and officers argued that the reduced occupancy would therefore not have an unacceptable impact on the wider highway network. Conditions were recommended to limit the maximum occupancy to four people, require a detailed HMO management plan, and remove permitted development rights for the property.

Arguments against the proposal highlighted the lived experience of residents near HMOs, suggesting that noise impacts could still be significant due to the building's construction and the comings and goings of unrelated individuals. Concerns were also raised about the accuracy of the parking survey and the potential for displacement parking.

49 Admaston Road, Plumstead, London, SE18 2TU - Ref: 25/2155/F

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use from a single-family dwelling to a five-person HMO, along with the construction of a rear dormer and provision of refuse and cycle storage. This decision was made subject to conditions, including the removal of the requirement for wheeling ramps on the stairs for cycle storage access and a condition for the replacement of a tree in the rear garden.

Objectors raised concerns about the impact on the neighbourhood's character, potential noise and disturbance, inadequate bin storage, and parking pressure. They also highlighted safety issues related to bringing bikes through the house and the potential for increased demand on local infrastructure.

Officers addressed these concerns by noting that the proposed dormer was of the same scale as previously approved under a certificate of lawful development, thus having no additional impact. They also stated that the number of occupants was a minimal increase on what could be expected in a family home and that a revised HMO management plan would be secured by condition. The Highways Officer raised no objection to the parking survey, which indicated sufficient capacity on surrounding streets.

304-308 Creek Road, Deptford, London, SE10 9SW - Ref: 25/1518/F

The committee resolved to defer the decision on the amalgamation of two existing ground floor commercial units into a single unit for a site visit. This decision was made to allow members to better understand the configuration of the proposed delivery location and its potential impact on residential entrances.

The application, for a single Use Class E(a) commercial unit, was called in by Councillor Calum O'Byrne Mulligan due to concerns about delivery and servicing arrangements. Objectors, including Councillor O'Byrne Mulligan and Councillor Majella Anning, raised significant issues regarding the proposed rerouting of deliveries. They argued that the new goods entrance would obstruct residential entrances and fire escape routes, potentially compromising safety and accessibility, particularly for residents of Shamrock House and those with limited mobility. Concerns were also raised about the potential for increased pavement obstruction by delivery cages and the impact on the character of the area.

Officers presented the Delivery and Servicing Plan, which aimed to control delivery arrangements and ensure no cages would be stored outside the premises when not in use. While the plan was intended to address existing issues, objectors felt the proposed solution was inadequate and potentially unsafe. The committee's decision to defer for a site visit indicates a need for further clarification on the practical implications of the proposed servicing arrangements.