Earlier this year, a proposal was submitted to Sutton Council to convert 15 Surrey Grove from a single-family dwelling to an HMO (house in multiple occupation) for up to 4 residents.
The plans also include a single-storey rear extension measuring 3 metres, as well as internal alterations to create 4 en-suite bedrooms and a shared kitchen, dining, and living space.
According to the planning statement, all four bedrooms exceed Sutton’s minimum space standards, and the communal area meets the required size for up to five occupants.
The developers say the aim is to provide “high-quality living accommodation” in line with the National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan and the Sutton Local Plan.
They add that the extension has been “sensitively designed” to remain subordinate to the existing house and will not affect neighbours’ daylight or outlook.
A fire safety strategy has also been included, featuring FD30 fire doors, interlinked smoke alarms and a protected escape route.
A pre-application meeting was held with a council planning officer in April, with the developers saying the proposals, including the HMO use and rear extension, received positive feedback.
However, residents of Surrey Grove have objected to the application, with no supporters coming forward.
Huw Chandler raised concerns about parking, saying the road already struggles with “very limited on-street parking” and repeated access issues.
He noted previous consultations on restrictions and said cars are “frequently hit” due to the narrow layout, adding: “It is therefore very surprising that the Council’s Highways team raised no objection.”
He also argued the HMO would change the property’s character and highlighted past problems with an “apparently unlicensed” HMO nearby.
Elwyn Evans said the development would “change the outlook/character of this area”, which has long been based on family homes, warning of “possible anti-social behaviour”, noise, safety issues and environmental concerns.
Vince Ownes, whose property backs onto the site, said the prospect of a transient population raises “significant apprehensions” about safety and security.
He pointed out that residents had previously installed security gates due to fly-tipping and break-ins and criticised the developer for beginning work before permission was granted.
Neighbour Joseph Slatter said increasing the number of occupants would “disrupt” the quiet nature of the surrounding gardens.
He shared previous experiences elsewhere where single-occupancy rooms were “abused” and overcrowded, forcing him to leave his former home due to noise and disruption.
Mikhail Ivanov said the introduction of an HMO would make the residential street “more inhabited”, arguing infrastructure such as parking and schools cannot simply scale with higher density.
He warned that approving one HMO could “create a precedent” that gradually changes the entire area.
The developers said: “The proposal represents a high-quality and well-considered small HMO scheme that meets or exceeds all relevant policy and space standards.
“It provides much-needed affordable accommodation for young professionals and key workers in Sutton, with no unacceptable impact on neighbours or the character of the area.”
A council meeting was held on Wednesday (December 3), and Sutton Council will make a decision by December 12.
