Greenwich Council's Local Planning Committee has approved plans for a six-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 47 Arbroath Road, Eltham, despite significant objections from local residents.
The committee voted to grant planning permission for the change of use from a dwellinghouse to a six-person HMO, which also includes a single-storey rear extension and a loft conversion with a dormer.
During the meeting on Wednesday, June 24, 2026, councillors heard from residents who raised concerns about safety, community character, noise, disturbance, parking, and waste.
Con Finney, speaking on behalf of concerned residents, expressed worries about sharp practice
by the developer. Residents are concerned about the potential for sharp practice
by the developer, using a reduced application to gain a foothold before seeking a material change. Mr Finney requested confirmation on whether current works complied with approved plans and whether a fresh application was required for the six-bedroom proposal. He also stated that he had spoken to the legal team regarding the sequences that appear to be sharp practice on part of the developer, viewing it as the same as insider trading, a foreknowledge of the outcome.
Councillor Pat Greenwell asked for more detail about restrictive covenants, stating they specified dwellings for single family
use. Mr Finney elaborated that the restrictive covenants cover all our dwellings
and state that the dwellings are for single family, single family, which is improved in the court of law, means one, for a maximum of five persons, or for up to five persons.
He also mentioned restrictive covenants of other things that are in there, which is light and everything else. There's a whole room of them, and they are in the deeds of the properties that these people owe.
However, officers noted that restrictive covenants are not a material planning consideration for planning decisions. The Chair also reminded members that restrictive covenants may not be an issue that we can deal with as planners.
Officers outlined the site's planning history, including a previous refusal for a six-bedroom HMO due to unacceptable design, which was upheld on appeal. A subsequent application for a five-bedroom HMO with a single-storey rear extension was approved.
Councillors questioned the differences between the refused and current applications. Officers clarified that the previous refusal was based on the design of a part-two-storey rear extension, whereas the current proposal features a single-storey rear extension and a loft conversion with a dormer, elements that had previously been approved.
Concerns were also raised about the kitchen size, which was confirmed to meet the minimum requirement of 10.5 square metres. The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 1B was explained as indicating low accessibility to public transport, though the site is within walking distance of bus routes. Highways officers raised no objections regarding parking. Despite the low PTAL rating, the council's policy or criteria for approving HMOs in such areas is that whilst the application site has a PTAL rating of 1B, which is considered low, the site is still within walking distance of bus routes.
It also notes that there are no adopted policies yet relating to the over-concentration of HMOs within the area.
The decision to grant planning permission was made with officers clarifying that the site was within walking distance of bus routes
and that on-street car parking spaces are available in the area, and we have received no objections from the council's highway officer to the application.
The projected impacts of the six-bedroom HMO on local parking availability were considered. The meeting information states that the PTAL rating is 1B, indicating low accessibility to public transport. However, Highways officers raised no objections regarding parking. On-street car parking spaces are available in the area, and residents also have converted their front gardens to provide off-street car parking spaces. A parking survey was not carried out, but the committee decided that the proposed development did not have any adverse impact on car parking in the area, as the Highways department had not raised any issues.
Residents raised concerns about safety, community character, loss of family dwellinghouses, noise, disturbance, parking, waste, and the design of the extension. Specifically regarding safety, Con Finney mentioned fire and safety requirements
in comparison to a five-bedroom layout. The meeting information does not detail specific safety concerns beyond this general mention or how they will be addressed, other than the imposition of an Operational Management Plan
condition which includes details on management to minimize amenity impact and a 24-hour emergency contact number.
Regarding potential noise and disturbance, the meeting information does not detail specific measures to mitigate these impacts, other than the general statement that the associated levels of noise would reflect those expected within a typical suburban residential area.
It also mentions that any such issues could be managed through conditions like an HMO management plan.
A condition requiring an Operational Management Plan
was attached to the decision notice, which would include details on how the property would be managed to minimise the impact on the residential amenity of adjoining owner/occupiers
and a 24-hour emergency telephone number to be utilised by residents of neighbouring should any concerns from noise nuisance or other nuisance arise.
Despite the objections, the committee ultimately voted to grant planning permission for the development.
For more details, refer to the Public reports pack and the Agenda frontsheet.
