Medway's planning committee threw out three Gillingham HMO conversions on 26 August, two against officer advice, and one is already at appeal. The six applications and how each went.
Medway’s planning committee refused three applications to turn family houses in Gillingham into houses in multiple occupation at a single meeting, twice voting down its own officers’ recommendation to approve. The record of the 26 August meeting was published this week with the agenda for the committee’s next sitting (record of the meeting).
Six HMO applications were on the night’s agenda, five of them in Gillingham South ward. Two were approved, three refused and one deferred. The deferred case, 65 Copenhagen Road, came back before the committee on 23 September.
How each application went
| Address | Proposal | Officers said | Committee decided |
|---|---|---|---|
| 311 Canterbury Street | 6-person HMO | Approve | Refused |
| 4 Barnsole Road | 6-bed HMO plus dormer | Refuse | Refused |
| 53 Shakespeare Road | 5-bed HMO | Approve | Refused |
| 63 Copenhagen Road | 5-bed HMO | Approve | Approved with conditions |
| 65 Copenhagen Road | 5-bed HMO (retrospective) | Approve | Deferred |
| 1 Blenheim Avenue, Chatham | 6-bed HMO | Approve | Approved with conditions |
Source: record of the Medway Council planning committee, 26 August 2026.
Why members said no
The arguments repeated across the evening. Ward councillors for Gillingham South spoke against four of the five applications in their ward, and Chatham’s ward councillor spoke against the Blenheim Avenue scheme. The record shows members pressing three points:
- Loss of family homes. Members noted that there were 747 families on Medway’s housing waiting list and said converting family houses did not help. On Canterbury Street they pointed to the council’s policy of keeping properties under 120 square metres as family homes; that house measures 115 square metres. On Shakespeare Road the house is 121 square metres, one metre over the line, and members refused it anyway.
- Concentration. The council’s mapping found 86 HMOs within 500 metres of the Copenhagen Road sites. Officers argued that the concentration was spread across the wider area rather than clustered on any one street, and that Blenheim Avenue had none. Members were told Gillingham South has the highest concentration of HMOs in Medway.
- Noise, comings and goings. Both refusals against officer advice cite increased noise, disturbance and “comings and goings” from unrelated adults as harm to neighbours.
Parking came up on every case and was not used as a reason for refusal on any. The council’s highways consultant and its development management service manager told members that without an independent parking survey showing existing stress, a parking reason could not be justified.
What officers pushed back on
Officers reminded the committee more than once that each application had to be judged on its own merits, and that neighbouring applications not yet decided could not be counted as established HMOs. Members questioned whether the council’s HMO records were complete, since some conversions never needed permission. Officers said the mapping came from the evidence base for the Article 4 direction, which Cabinet approved in January 2026 for seven wards including Gillingham South, and that financial records could not be used to identify HMOs.
On 65 Copenhagen Road, the record notes that a lawful development certificate for a six-person HMO had already been granted in September 2025, before the Article 4 direction took effect. Works started but were not finished in time, so retrospective permission was needed. The applicant had cut the scheme to five bedrooms after pre-application advice. The property is already occupied as an HMO and no complaints had been received. Members deferred it for more detail on waste management and “exploration of further reasons for refusal”.
The Barnsole Road refusal
The one HMO refusal that followed officer advice, at 4 Barnsole Road, fell on different grounds: three of the proposed bedrooms were below the national space standard, the proposed dormer would read as an extra storey, and, in a reason the committee amended on the night, the application had not addressed its effect on the Thames Estuary and Marshes and Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Areas. That same bird-site reason was added to the refusal of 100 homes at Cliffe the same evening.
What it means for you
- Landlords and agents: since the Article 4 direction, an HMO conversion in the seven covered wards needs planning permission, and this committee is refusing schemes its officers would approve. The 120 square metre threshold and the 500 metre concentration map are the two tests to check before applying. Our planning applications page explains how to find a case on the portal.
- Neighbours: every refusal here followed a ward councillor speaking at committee. Objections that cite specific harm, such as noise or the loss of a family home, carried weight; parking complaints without survey evidence did not.
- Applicants refused against officer advice can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, and refusals that go against the professional recommendation are more exposed at appeal. That has already started: the portal records an appeal in progress on 53 Shakespeare Road, reference 26/00030/REFUSE (related cases tab). 311 Canterbury Street had no appeal lodged when we checked. Both refusal notices were issued on 2 September.
Have your say