Appeal 6005151

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Medway Council. That application the subject of a separate decision.

The description of development on the decision notice refers to the proposed use being an 8 bedroom HMO (Class C4). In the header above I have used the description given on the original application form as that is more accurate.

At the time of my site visit I saw that the house was being used as an HMO with six bedrooms and some communal areas. In addition the foundations had been laid for the rear extension shown on the plans. It is understood that the rear extension, along with other alterations, have planning permission by virtue of a Lawful Development Certificate granted in April 20251.

The decision letter refers to policy T8 of the emerging Medway Local Plan which relates specifically to houses of multiple occupation. However this Plan is only at Regulation 19 stage and has not been subject of examination, so the policy carries only limited weight.

The Council introduced an Article 4 direction on 22 January 2026 which removed permitted development rights available under Class L, Part 3, Schedule 2 of the GPDO which allows for the change of use between Class C3 uses (dwellinghouses) and Class C4 uses (houses of multiple occupation for up to 6 residents). It is clear that when the application was submitted the Article [address]. Although the appellant states the property was in Class C4 use before the Article 4 direction took effect, it is not for this appeal to reach a judgement on that. 1 [name]/25/0372

The main issues are the effect of the development on the character of the area, and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings with regard to noise and disturbance.

The site is located in a dense urban area not far from the commercial centre of Gillingham. [address], and the neighbouring streets, are mainly comprised of long terraces of dwellings and the appeal site accommodates an end of terrace property on the corner of [address] and [address]. The majority of the properties in the road appear to be in use as traditional dwellinghouses suitable for families.

Policy H7 of the adopted Medway Local Plan (2003) (the ‘MLP’) refers to multiple occupation and states that such dwellings will be permitted where, among other things, the property is in a predominantly mixed use or commercial area. The Council state the area is predominantly residential, and whilst there are some mixed use elements nearby, I agree. There would therefore be conflict with policy H7.

However, much of the evidence before me relates to the concentration of HMOs in the local area. Emerging policy T8 aims to avoid clusters of HMOs and the loss of family housing.

Both parties refer to a report2 which investigated the number of HMOs in the area. This shows that the [name] ward, in which the appeal site sits, has the most HMOs of any ward in Medway. There are 205 HMOs out of 7163 dwellings, which is the highest concentration of any ward, and this equates to a proportion of 2.8%. The report also identifies a correlation between the high number of HMOs and a high number of instances of anti-social behaviour and complaints about private rented properties. Based on this report, the Council state that there are 62 HMOs within a 500m radius of the site and 10 within 150m radius, of which [address].

The appellant counts [address]. Taking the Council’s figure of 9 existing HMOs, the development would result in around 9% of properties in the street being HMOs. Neither the existing or emerging policy sets a threshold for what is an acceptable proportion, and although the appellant refers to a 10% threshold being used elsewhere, I have no evidence before me to substantiate that. Nonetheless, it is apparent from the evidence that many of the existing HMOs are concentrated around the southern end of [address], near the appeal site. In my view, it is this clustering that the emerging policy seeks to guard against.

In addition, there is a residential care home at No 1 and the Council refer to other properties in [address] where it appears that dwellings have been converted into flats as evidenced by multiple door bells. From my site visit I saw that this was the case at Nos 2, 4, 34, 38 and 56. It is likely therefore that a relatively high proportion of the properties in [address], and particularly at 2 [name] & [name], DHA/37056, November [address] closest to the appeal site, are not in use as traditional family housing. This concentration of non-family housing means that traditional family housing does not dominate and the character of the area has changed.

The evidence from the HMO report demonstrates a correlation between the presence of HMOs and anti-social behaviour. Notwithstanding that, the occupiers of HMOs tend to be more transient in nature than families. Either aspect could result in a loss of community, which would be harmful to the character of the area. The use of the site as a large HMOs, which would result in the loss of a unit of family accommodation, would therefore exacerbate this harmful change in character.

The appellant states that the existing property should be considered as an 8 bedroom house, which would be unsuitable for a single family anyway. However there are, at present, only six bedrooms, and the submitted ‘existing’ plans only show three.

In summary the development would result in a high concentration of HMOs and the loss of a family house which would contribute to a harmful departure from the existing character of the area. It is therefore contrary to adopted policy H7 and emerging policy T8 as set out above.

The use of the building by eight people living independently would be more intensive than if it were used by a single family. This would be mainly manifest in the numbers of comings and goings by residents and their guests through the front door, and use of the rear garden.

The front door is away from the common boundary with No 5 and partly screened by the bay window, and the entrance gate is likewise separate from neighbouring dwellings. The garden abuts the rear garden of Nos 5 and [address], but it is a substantially larger garden than all of the nearby houses and could accommodate a greater number of people without them necessarily being close to either neighbouring property.

As such, the development would not be likely to cause unacceptable noise or disturbance to neighbouring residents. In this regard therefore the proposal would accord with MLP policy BNE2 and emerging policy T8 which both seek to ensure that development protects the amenities of the area and of adjacent properties.

Although the development would not be unduly disturbing to neighbouring residents, it would harm the character of the area to which I give significant weight. It would therefore conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.