Greenwich Council's Local Planning Committee has approved a proposal to convert a property on Camdale Road into a six-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), overriding significant resident objections and concerns raised by ward councillors.
The decision, made at a meeting on Tuesday, 24 March 2026, followed considerable debate regarding the property's suitability and its potential impact on the local area. The committee appears to have granted planning permission for HMO applications by prioritising planning policies and guidance over emotive arguments, stating that it's not the volume of objectors you have. You could have one objector who raises an issue that we can defend and results in harmful development. We can defend that. Or you can have 20. So it doesn't matter about the volume. It's whether we can substantiate a reason for refusal.
Councillor Patricia Greenwell voted against the application, citing concerns about the impact on residential amenity due to noise and disturbance, and a sense of overdevelopment. She also referenced a previous comment from a resident, Derek, who had expressed that the HMO would be a great risk to my end of life,
which Councillor Greenwell found distressing. Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins also expressed concerns about the robustness of the management plan.
Officers responded to concerns about management plans by stating that Condition 9 requires an operational management plan to be submitted and approved, and that planning enforcement powers could be used if the plan is not adhered to.
They further clarified that our HMO licensing team can take action from a planning point of view.
For 112 Camdale Road specifically, a condition was recommended requiring a HMO management plan to be submitted to and improved in writing by the local planning authority. And this shall include details of how the property will be managed and details of a 24 hour emergency telephone line to be provided to neighboring properties.
However, councillors Jo van den Broek and Raja Zeeshan voted in favour, noting that the application had been reduced from eight to six occupants and that officers had confirmed reasonable arrangements for noise and disruption mitigation. The officer's recommendation to approve was carried.
During the meeting, residents and ward councillors voiced strong objections. Councillor Izzy Cook highlighted that the property is located in an area of special character made up of traditional family homes with a very consistent look and feel.
She argued that the proposed intensification of use would shift the character of the area away from what the designation is meant to protect. The officer's report for this application also notes that the site does however sit just to the west of the boundary of the Plumstead common conservation area.
Concerns were also raised about parking pressure. The application proposed two off-street parking spaces.
The officer noted that in order to demonstrate there is sufficient capacity within the surrounding road network to cater any additional demand, a parking survey has been undertaken by the applicant. All parking spaces within 200 metres of the site was surveyed across two nights. The results of these can be seen on screen, and they indicate significant parking availability across both nights, with only 34% of available parking spaces used on the surveyed nights. It has therefore been reasonably demonstrated that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate any additional parking demand generated by the proposed development, as demonstrated by the car parking survey.
Councillor Izzy Cook raised concerns about the parking survey, stating, I noted that your parking survey happened overnight, so I think that's missed. The fact that most of the cars come and park in the middle of the day and on the weekends. So I would strongly recommend a parking survey be done in the day when that area is much busier and much more used.
Mark Beaumont, representing residents, described the route to the cycle storage as dangerous, unhygienic, invasive, and unnavigable,
detailing how cyclists would struggle to use the proposed facilities. He also noted that the property is in a very quiet cul-de-sac
and that six separate individuals coming and going would have an unacceptably greater noise impact
on the noise-sensitive area.
Sally McDougall, speaking on behalf of parents whose children attend childcare at a neighbouring property, stated that putting an HMO next to a childcare provider was clearly inappropriate and a safeguarding risk.
She argued that multiple tenants would increase the likelihood of disturbances, affecting the childcare business and reducing the availability of childcare in the area. She further elaborated, The proposed HMO is likely to significantly increase noise, activity, disturbance throughout my day, directly affecting the welfare of the children in my care. Parents are unhappy and could pull their children.
She also raised concerns about the loft conversion overlooking the garden where children play: The loft, if it is approved, would directly overlook into my garden. I have no privacy of the children. We do water sports. We are in our bathing swimwear at times and I have concerns about strangers at windows looking out.
The officer's response was that although a childminder operates from the building, it's still a single family dwelling house in planning terms. So, lawfully, that's the use. There's been no change of use at number 110 to a official nursery. There's just a childminder's operating from the site. So, we have to assess it based on the impact of, uh, on a, on a family house as opposed to a childminder's.
Children's services were consulted and provided no objection.
Anna Ribeiro, the childminder operating at the adjacent property, expressed fears that the HMO would lead to her losing her business and having to sell her house. She highlighted concerns about increased noise, parking issues, and reduced visibility, particularly for the vulnerable children in her care.
Ultimately, the committee approved the application, with some councillors noting that the proposal had been reduced from eight to six occupants and that measures were in place to mitigate potential issues.
For further details on similar applications, see the reports for 6 Melling Street, 31 Eltham Hill, and 82 Bramblebury Road.
