Plumstead residents are increasingly pushing back against plans to convert residential properties into rentals occupied by multiple unrelated individuals.
Two applications for Houses in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) conversions received record objections from residents at Greenwich Council planning meetings over the past five months.
On October 22, led by Plumstead Common Councillor Nas Asghar, 24 objections were made to converting a single-family home on Lucknow Street into a five-bedroom rental.
It follows the 35 objections to a proposal for a single-family dwelling in Shooters Hill to be converted into a 7-bedroom HMO.
When granting approval for residential conversions, the planning officers and local planning committee look at whether a proposal follows regulations set by the Greenwich Council. Any other concerns outside of the regulations are dealt with by HMO renovation companies.
The changes proposed to the interior of 24 Lucknow Street include removing the current kitchen, dining, and communal area to add two new bedrooms, along with two single-storey extensions to the back of the dwelling. This will turn the single-family dwelling into a six-person residence, all within the regulations, as pointed out by Planning Officer Dominic Harris.
Meeting the building regulations was not enough to convince Asghar, who brought up the issue of adding more parking pressure to the Plumstead neighborhood.
“It [Lucknow St.] is not in an area with controlled parking, so it’s assumed there isn’t a parking pressure. But please, let me assure you that there is. It’s bumper to bumper on Lucknow Street,” Asghar concluded. “I would urge the committee to be pragmatic because the only people this is going to affect is the community of Lucknow Street.”
Without the proposal applicant present, Chair of Planning Gary Dillon asked the Local Planning Committee to defer their vote until they could get more information from the applicant, listed on the Committee’s Agenda Plan as simply “Mr. Held.”
“I’m not happy that the applicant isn’t here to answer certain questions,” Dillon comments. “And I think it’s unfair on our [Planning] Officers that we are having to put more pressure on them to answer questions that really go beyond their policy compliant remit.”
