New proposals aimed at regulating controversial home conversions, which have put some neighbours at war, have been unveiled.

Maidstone council is looking to adopt a new policy which will give it the powers it needs to tackle some of the worst problems caused when large family homes are turned into Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).

HMOs are occupied generally by unrelated single households and the move follows repeated concerns raised about the pressure on parking, rows of unsightly waste bins and sometimes noisy or disruptive behaviour from tenants.

Complaints have been voiced particularly loudly in the Fant and Oakwood Ward, which for some reason has attracted many HMO developers.

It currently has the second-highest number of HMOs of any ward in Maidstone, coming only after the High Street Ward.

But whereas those living in the High Street area perhaps have less need of a car because of the availability of local services, and if they do have one can park in a council car park, residents in Fant are already experiencing a crisis with too many motorists competing for too few spaces on its often narrow streets.

At present, under government legislation, HMO conversions of six or fewer bedrooms do not need planning permission.

But Maidstone council is proposing a new Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to give itself greater control over the larger HMOs that do.

The policy was considered by members of the Planning and Healthier Stronger Communities Committee.

Before the SPD can be adopted, it has to be approved for consultation by the cabinet member. That will be followed by a four-week period when the public and developers can make their views known.

An SPD cannot introduce entirely new policies to the existing Local Plan, which sets out a vision and framework for the future development of an area. It can only enlarge or define existing policies, so its scope is limited.

However, the proposed SPD provides detailed planning guidance on six topics including harmful concentration, HMO sandwiching, room size, outdoor amenity space, parking provision and waste storage.

The SPD defines “a harmful concentration of HMOs” to be where 10% of the properties within a 100-metre radius of the application site are HMOs.

It also says an HMO will not be allowed where the development would lead to existing residential properties being sandwiched - either with an HMO on either side or an HMO to the front and rear. “Sandwiching” would still occur, even if there were minor interruptions in the building line such as vehicular or pedestrian access points, but not where a road acts as the separator.

The SPD also requires HMO rooms to provide “adequate natural light”. This condition comes after a recent bid where the developer wanted to put bedrooms in a basement with no windows.

The SPD goes further and says: “Rooms must not rely solely on north-facing windows for daylight and should, where possible, have openings on more than one elevation to provide dual aspect.”

Exceptions may be allowed where extra light is provided through high-performance glazing, light wells, or clerestory windows which are those placed high on a wall, usually near the ceiling or roof.

HMOs in future must also come with outdoor amenity space for the residents, big enough to accommodate seating and space to dry clothes for everyone who lives there.

On waste, developers should provide enclosed bin storage areas, or give adequate landscaping to conceal unsightly bins from view, and should also investigate shared refuse arrangements.

On parking, the SPD specifies that in future, HMO bedrooms will be treated as one-bedroom flats for the purposes of parking standards, meaning each bedroom will require one parking space to be provided.

However, developers are given a let-out as the policy adds: “Where a development proposes no parking, or provides parking below the adopted standards, applications will only be validated if a parking survey is submitted [to show] there is sufficient capacity on surrounding streets to accommodate additional demand.”

Although the SPD has been largely welcomed by councillors, it was this latter policy where some felt the proposals did not go far enough.

Cllr Stan Forecast (Con) said: “An HMO in Fant was recently approved on the basis that it was near the town centre and the town centre had enough parking. I don’t see how this [wording] is getting around that issue.”

He said: “I think in order for an HMO to be approved it must provide at least one parking space per tenant in these three wards [High Street, Fant and Penenden Heath].”

Cabinet member Cllr Tony Harwood (Lib Dem) said that it would be the council’s policy to require one space each, however, an applicant could put in whatever application they liked, and if they could provide evidence that there was sufficient parking, the council “would need to show some flexibility”.

Cllr Clive English (Lib Dem) said: “This is about tilting the bar in the direction we would want it to go. It is not an absolute silver bullet.”

Cllr Harwood said: “Having a policy is much better than having no policy.”

But Cllr Forecast was concerned: “Could developers claim there is sufficient parking because half of their tenants won’t have a car or there is a bus-stop nearby?”

Cllr Harwood said: “All planning applications are a balancing exercise. If there is a reasonable case, our planning officers may take a view [that it’s okay].

“That’s no different from any application. But this SPD is pretty tough.”

Cllr Forecast was still not happy and proposed an amendment that would require the developer to identify a minimum of one parking space per tenant.

Officers advised against such an amendment, saying it would be difficult to produce the evidence to justify such a firm policy restriction.

Cllr English said that rather than delay, it would be better to adopt the SPD now, as it was, and then to seek the evidence to justify Cllr Forecast’s wish and to tighten up the policy later.

Cllr English said: “Pursuing the Holy Grail of the perfect would prevent us from doing some good in the meantime.”

But Cllr Forecast insisted: “I’m uncomfortable passing this without that wording of one space per tenant. I’d like it to be voted on.”

Cllr Claudine Russell (Con) agreed. She said: “We should reach for this parking requirement.”

Cllr Donna Greenan (Green) spoke up on behalf of HMO residents.

She said: ”People who live in HMOs contribute massively to this town and sometimes it feels like we are at war over parking.

“I recently visited an HMO with six rooms and only one person could actually drive, but they still had to put up with comments from other residents in the road that they were taking up all the parking spaces etc but the HMO actually only had one car.

“I do worry that if we are very insistent with developers over parking we are going to reduce the ability to accommodate some of these key workers in the town.”

Cllr Forecast’s proposed amendment was defeated by two votes to five, with one abstention.

The SPD as proposed was then passed to proceed to the next stage - a decision by the cabinet on March 19 on whether it should go out to public consultation.

The council’s strategic planning officer, Mark Egerton, said: “Hopefully the message goes out to the public that we are looking to receive their comments and observations before the document is finalised and adopted.”

Fant ward councillor Kimmy Milham (Green) assured him: “Me and my residents are excited to give our comments on this.”

Another Fant councillor, Paul Harper (Fant and Oakwood Independent), was not at the meeting but said afterwards: “I welcome the report and fully support it, but it does only apply to HMOs of more than six bedrooms.

“A big problem in Fant is the proliferation of four and five-bedroom HMOs.”

Cllr Harwood said the SPD was a comprehensive policy that would help to fill the planning policy vacuum on HMOs.

For smaller HMOs, the council was looking at other measures to try to alleviate the situation.

Cllr Harwood also observed: “There seems to be some displacement going on, as the latest figures from 2023 show that the number of HMO registrations in London has actually decreased by 25%, whereas the number in the authorities around the South East has increased by 10%.”