Medway Council’s planning officers recommended refusing an application to convert a Barnsole Road terraced house into a six-bedroom house in multiple occupation, finding the property too small for subdivision and several proposed bedrooms below the legal minimum size. The committee considered the application on 26 August; its decision has not yet been published.

A proposal to convert a family home in Gillingham into a six-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) was recommended for refusal by planning officers and considered by Medway Council’s Planning Committee when it met on 26 August 2026.

The application, reference MC/26/1032, sought permission to change the use of 4 Barnsole Road, Gillingham, ME7 4DJ from a single dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a six-bedroom, six-person HMO (Class C4), along with the construction of an L-shaped rear dormer to create additional loft accommodation.

Property too small under local plan policy

Officers recommended refusal on four separate grounds. The first and most fundamental was the size of the property itself. The existing house measures 91 square metres internally. The Medway Local Plan 2003 states that the council considers dwellings of less than 120 square metres gross floor area in predominantly residential areas should be retained for families and single households. Officers concluded that the property did not meet the threshold for subdivision and that converting it would result in the loss of a dwelling that would more broadly lend itself to single-family occupation, contrary to Policy H7 of the Local Plan and Policy T8 of the draft Local Plan 2025.

Bedrooms below national minimum size

Officers also found that three of the six proposed bedrooms failed to meet the Nationally Described Space Standard. Bedrooms 2 and 4 were found to measure 6.68 square metres and 6.41 square metres respectively, both below the minimum floor area of 7.5 square metres required for a single bedroom. Bedrooms 2 and 3 did not meet the minimum width requirement of 2.15 metres, measuring 2.05 metres and 1.7 metres respectively.

The shared kitchen and dining area at ground floor, measuring 25 square metres, was also criticised. Officers noted it had just one rear door to provide sunlight, daylight and outlook, which they said was not acceptable and would impact its usability, resulting in residents having to spend more time in their inadequate bedrooms to the detriment of their health and wellbeing.

Dormer design and missing ecological payment

The proposed L-shaped rear dormer was found to be set down from the ridge of the existing roof but not inset from the eaves, which officers said did not conform to design standards for a terraced dwelling. They concluded it would appear like a flat-roof second-storey extension and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the building and the street scene, contrary to Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan.

A fourth ground for refusal was the applicant’s failure to submit a SAMMS Mitigation Contribution Agreement or payment, required under Policies S6 and BNE35 of the Local Plan.

Two letters of objection were received from neighbouring residents raising concerns about parking, clustering of HMOs, noise and disturbance, over-intensification, and impact on privacy. The application site falls within the Watling Ward, which officers noted has the highest number of known and predicted HMOs of all affected wards, with 64 identified in the HMO Review and Evidence Paper published in November 2025. However, officers did not find that the proposal would constitute an over-concentration of HMOs in the immediate area around Barnsole Road.

Refusal reasons rewritten before the meeting

A supplementary agenda published ahead of the meeting amended the recommended reasons for refusal. Officers explained that an updated National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August 2026, replacing the December 2024 version, and that the paragraphs and policies cited in the original committee report had consequently been superseded. The amended reasons cite policies DP3, P3, N2.2 and N6 of the 2026 framework alongside the Medway Local Plan 2003 and the draft Local Plan 2025.

The supplementary agenda also recorded three representations made on behalf of the Independent Group, together with copies of letters from Richard Buxton Solicitors to the Local Plan inspectors and to the council’s Local Plan team concerning the authority’s Habitats Regulations Assessment position. Officers said the representations did not raise any additional considerations beyond the matters contained in the original officer report as amended by the updated reasons for refusal.

The council had not published the minutes of the meeting at the time of writing, so the committee’s decision is not yet on the public record. The recommendations and findings set out above are those of Medway Council’s planning officers.

Sources

Correction, 27 August 2026: An earlier version of this article was headlined “Gillingham HMO bid refused as house deemed too small and rooms fall below national space standards” and its summary stated that the planning committee “considered and refused” the application. Medway Council’s committee papers record a recommendation of refusal by planning officers; the committee’s own decision has not yet been published. The headline and summary have been amended, and the article now also reports the amended reasons for refusal set out in the supplementary agenda.

Top image: illustrative, computer-generated. Illustrative AI-generated image of a mid-terrace house typical of Gillingham’s residential streets. This is not a photograph of 4 Barnsole Road or any real property.