The decision marks the third planning refusal in a year for the Sutton HMO, which currently houses six people
A bid to expand a controversial HMO in Sutton has been rejected for the third time in a year, after residents told councillors the property had become a “hotbed” of police activity and claimed people had been seen walking naked along the street.
The decision to reject the proposed HMO expansion at 48 Hallmead Road went against the council’s own recommendation to approve the plans.
The applicant, Ghlenn Perry Capuyan, had sought permission to expand the property from a six-person HMO to a 10-bedroom facility. The proposal involved converting existing ground and second-floor office and storage spaces into four additional bedrooms with en-suite facilities.
However, Hallmead Road residents mounted a campaign against the expansion, warning it would harm the character of their neighbourhood. They submitted a petition signed by 67 people from 30 households, which a residents’ representative said accounted for more than 68 per cent of households on the road.
Speaking at Sutton’s planning committee on August 5, the representative said the road had become a “hotbed” of anti-social behaviour since the existing six-person HMO was built last year. They also raised concerns about parking pressure, noise and waste management.
“Since it has been built we have been inundated with police presence,” they said. “We have had people from the property walking up and down the street naked.
“It’s a residential road. They let anyone live there and we have to live with this.”
The representative said residents had submitted evidence of the incidents to police and argued that the council should therefore be aware of the problems.
The residents also accused the developer of breaking their trust, saying they had initially been told the property would become a large family home before being advertised as an 11-bedroom HMO.
They also highlighted that Hallmead Road was an unrestricted parking “island” surrounded by Sutton town centre’s controlled parking zones. They said this left local residents facing significant parking pressure as non-residents sought to avoid paying permit fees by parking on the road.
Sutton North Councillor Sam Cumber intervened to bring the application before a public committee, citing residents’ concerns about overdevelopment and increased parking pressures. He also criticised the applicant’s lack of transparency.
Before the meeting, the council’s Licensing Team had issued a licence for 10 occupants, confirming that the HMO’s rooms met the required legal size standards. A Highways Officer also supported the scheme, accepting a parking survey which concluded that the expansion would not affect road safety.
To address parking concerns, the applicant proposed a “car-lite” management plan, including a strict “no-car” clause in tenancy agreements. However, council officers acknowledged they had no legal powers to enforce the restriction if tenants brought cars to the property.
A representative for the applicant said the HMO residents relied on public transport and would not add to traffic in the area. They also argued that the scheme would provide much-needed affordable housing in the borough.
“Finding safe, decent and lower cost housing in Sutton right now is extremely tough,” they said. “Not every working adult or young professional can afford a private place but everyone deserves a secure front door and a stable base to build their life.”
Despite this, Sutton’s planning committee ultimately sided with residents, expressing concern about the cumulative impact of four additional residents on the street. Members noted that the property has just one off-street parking space on its driveway for all 10 residents.
The committee also cited “unacceptable” impacts on residential amenity and overdevelopment, saying the decision reflected the need to protect the character of the established suburban area.
It is not the first time the council has refused plans for the site. A Lawful Development Certificate application was rejected in September 2025 after officers ruled that expanding the property to a 10-bedroom HMO would amount to a material change of use.
A subsequent full planning application was refused in January 2026 after the applicant failed to provide a required parking survey to demonstrate the car-free scheme would not increase pressure on surrounding streets.
To see all the planning applications, traffic diversions, road layout changes, alcohol licence applications and more in your area, enter your postcode below or visit the Public Notice Portal HERE
