Appeal 6006543

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The original description of development refers to a 9 bedroom 10 person HMO. However the Council merely considered the application as a 9 bedroom HMO. That was the description of development used on the decision letter and the first reason for refusal refers to 9 people. I have therefore considered the appeal on this same basis.

In addition the description of development used on the decision letter refers to the existing use being a dwellinghouse, rather than a 6 bedroom HMO. The appellant uses this description in their Appeal Statement too. At the time of my site visit the property was vacant, but its layout reflected the submitted existing plans which show it to be a 3 bedroom dwelling. I have therefore considered the appeal on that basis.

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.

A Lawful Development Certificate1 was issued on 2 September 2025 which confirmed that the use of the property as a 6 bed HMO (Class C4 use) would be lawful. Subsequent to the issuing of that certificate, the Council introduced an Article 4 direction on 22 January 2026 which removed permitted development rights 1 [name]/25/1154 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). As the Class C4 Use had not commenced, the appellant accepts that the use of the property for a Class C4 use, as set out in the Lawful Development Certificate, would no longer be lawful.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance, and whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for some of its future occupiers with regard to their outlook.

Although currently vacant, the building was previously in use as a Class C3 dwelling and the plans illustrate there were three bedrooms. Even if these were occupied as double bedrooms, which would be unlikely in a family house, that could amount to six people living at [address]. The proposal would result in nine people living in the building. This is, proportionately, a substantial increase.

The front door to the property is adjacent to No 27. The comings and goings of the occupiers and any visitors through the front door would be in close proximity to No 27, and their own front door. The increase in these movements, compared to what would be expected to result from the occupation of the property as a Class C3 family dwelling, would be significant and could be disturbing to the occupiers of No 27, even if the movements were all generally in the morning and evening peak times.

In addition, the rear garden is rather narrow and the plans show that only around a half of it would be available as a traditional garden, with the remainder used for bike storage and its associated hardstanding. If it were used by a number of residents simultaneously, it is inevitable that they would be close to the rear garden of either neighbouring dwelling. The substantial increase in residents could result in a commensurate increase in noise when using the rear garden which could be disturbing to neighbouring occupiers.

I recognise, internally, insulation could be provided to ensure there would be no transfer of excessive noise to No 27. Nonetheless, it is the use of the outside areas that is the Council’s concern.

The proposal could be disturbing to nearby residents such that their living conditions would be unacceptably harmed. It would therefore conflict with policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan (2003) (the ‘MLP’) which seeks to ensure that development protects the amenities enjoyed by nearby and adjacent properties, having regard to noise and activity levels. It would also be contrary to MLP policy H7 which allows for HMOs where increased activity would not be detrimental to local amenity. It would fail to accord with emerging policy T8 which requires HMOs to not adversely affect the well-being of existing residents.

The proposed plans show that bedrooms 2 and 5 would be located in the centre of the dwelling at ground and first floor level respectively. Both rooms would only be served by small bay windows on the side elevation. These would nearly abut the common boundary with No 23 and would be about 1m from the neighbour’s two-storey gable end wall.

The outlook from the ground floor bay window would be dominated by the gable end wall at No 23. When stood in the bay, the view towards the front of the property would be obscured by an entrance porch, and the view to the rear would be severely restricted by a rear projection which presents a two-storey blank wall facing the appeal site.

The outlook from the first-floor bay window would also be dominated by the flank wall at No 23. When stood in the bay, the view towards the front of the property would be obscured by the majority of the gable end roof. The view to the rear would be less obstructed and the rear gardens of neighbouring properties could be seen. Nonetheless, when in the majority of this bedroom, the outlook would be of the wall at No 23.

Both these rooms are currently served by additional windows on the rear elevation of the house. Although this is a north facing elevation, both these existing windows are a good size and contribute to these two rooms having good levels of daylight and outlook, even despite the ground floor window facing into a small conservatory. As both of these windows would be lost as a result of extensions which are also part of the proposal, the outlook to these two bedrooms would be significantly worse than at present.

It is not unreasonable to consider that the individuals in an HMO would spend more time in their individual rooms than in the communal areas, given their bedrooms would be their only personal space. Similarly, it is not unreasonable to consider that the residents in an HMO would spend more time in their bedrooms than were the rooms used as bedrooms in a family house. However, even if this were not the case, the outlook from a bedroom window and the light received in that room, should still be sufficient to provide satisfactory living conditions. That would not be the case in this proposal.

The appellant refers to other dwellings where bedrooms have side windows, but no examples have been provided so I can give little weight to this point.

As such, for this reason also, the proposal would conflict with policy BNE2 which aims to ensure that development secures the amenities of its future occupants, including in terms of daylight. It would also fail to accord with emerging policy T8 insofar as that requires HMO development to provide for a suitable level of amenity for future occupiers. [name] policy H7 also refers to HMOs, there is no part of that policy that the proposal, in this regard, would directly conflict with.

The Council do not dispute that the site is well located for access to the services and facilities in Gillingham town centre, nor that there would not be an adverse effect on traffic or parking stress locally. Likewise, the reasons for refusal do not cite the concentration of HMOs locally to be a concern in this case. Nonetheless, these factors are not positive benefits of the scheme and so carry minimal weight in my decision.

The proposal would 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.