A Sutton homeowner has returned to the town hall with fresh plans to turn a semi-detached house on Hallmead Road into a 10-bedroom shared house, just two months after councillors threw out a similar scheme.The new application asks Sutton Council for permission to increase the number of residents at 48 Hallmead Road from six to 10, alongside new refuse and cycle storage. A house in multiple occupation — an HMO — is a property where unrelated tenants rent individual rooms while sharing facilities such as kitchens and living areas.It is the second attempt in a matter of months. In August, members of the planning committee rejected an earlier version of the proposals, going against the advice of the council’s own planning officers, who had recommended the scheme for approval.That refusal followed strong opposition from people living nearby. More than 10 formal objections were lodged against the earlier application, and councillors heard that 67 people across 30 households had signed a petition opposing the development.Residents raised concerns about parking, noise and anti-social behaviour, and about the impact of fitting four more people into the semi-detached property. Councillors were said to be particularly unhappy about existing parking pressures in the area, and questioned whether measures designed to discourage tenants from owning cars could actually be enforced. There were also fears that four extra residents would bring more noise and disturbance for neighbours.The committee eventually refused permission on the grounds that parking pressures had not been adequately addressed and that the intensified use of the house would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residents.The decision cut against the professional advice put before members. Officers had concluded the development would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbours, described the submitted parking survey as reasonable and raised no objection on highway grounds.## What is different this timeRather than waiting for the outcome of an appeal against the refusal, which has been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate and remains ongoing, the applicant has returned to the council with a revised case.At its heart is an argument about the correct starting point. Planning documents say six people can already live lawfully at 48 Hallmead Road as an HMO, so the council should weigh the impact of four additional residents rather than judging the bid as if a 10-person HMO were being created from scratch. The submission also points out that refusing the plans would not return the building to use as a family home.The four extra bedrooms would largely be created from existing office and storage space inside the building, rather than through new extensions, according to the documents.The fresh bid also mounts a renewed defence on the two issues that sank the last application. On parking, the applicant argues that four extra residents would not necessarily mean four extra cars, and points to overnight parking surveys that found more than 20 available spaces in the surrounding streets. It has also offered
The new application asks Sutton Council for permission to increase the number of residents at 48 Hallmead Road from six to 10, alongside new refuse and cycle storage. A house in multiple occupation — an HMO — is a property where unrelated tenants rent individual rooms while sharing facilities such as kitchens and living areas.It is the second attempt in a matter of months. In August, members of the planning committee rejected an earlier version of the proposals, going against the advice of the council’s own planning officers, who had recommended the scheme for approval.That refusal followed strong opposition from people living nearby. More than 10 formal objections were lodged against the earlier application, and councillors heard that 67 people across 30 households had signed a petition opposing the development.
It is the second attempt in a matter of months. In August, members of the planning committee rejected an earlier version of the proposals, going against the advice of the council’s own planning officers, who had recommended the scheme for approval.
That refusal followed strong opposition from people living nearby. More than 10 formal objections were lodged against the earlier application, and councillors heard that 67 people across 30 households had signed a petition opposing the development.
Residents raised concerns about parking, noise and anti-social behaviour, and about the impact of fitting four more people into the semi-detached property. Councillors were said to be particularly unhappy about existing parking pressures in the area, and questioned whether measures designed to discourage tenants from owning cars could actually be enforced. There were also fears that four extra residents would bring more noise and disturbance for neighbours.
The committee eventually refused permission on the grounds that parking pressures had not been adequately addressed and that the intensified use of the house would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residents.
The decision cut against the professional advice put before members. Officers had concluded the development would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbours, described the submitted parking survey as reasonable and raised no objection on highway grounds.
What is different this time
Rather than waiting for the outcome of an appeal against the refusal, which has been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate and remains ongoing, the applicant has returned to the council with a revised case.
At its heart is an argument about the correct starting point. Planning documents say six people can already live lawfully at 48 Hallmead Road as an HMO, so the council should weigh the impact of four additional residents rather than judging the bid as if a 10-person HMO were being created from scratch. The submission also points out that refusing the plans would not return the building to use as a family home.
The four extra bedrooms would largely be created from existing office and storage space inside the building, rather than through new extensions, according to the documents.
The fresh bid also mounts a renewed defence on the two issues that sank the last application. On parking, the applicant argues that four extra residents would not necessarily mean four extra cars, and points to overnight parking surveys that found more than 20 available spaces in the surrounding streets. It has also offered to limit the property to two resident parking permits if a permit scheme is ever introduced in the area.
On noise, the submission says most of the proposed extra bedrooms would not directly adjoin the neighbouring property, and that sound insulation has been installed along the party wall. The documents accept that four more people could mean more movement and activity, but maintain the effect on neighbours would not be unacceptable.
