Plans for a 68-bed house of multiple occupation at the former student accommodation building in Broadstairs will go-ahead after Thanet council announced it would no longer contest the applicant’s appeal.
In 2024 Jamie Copland of RW (Margate) Ltd lodged proposals for a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) at the site with 84 rooms split into ‘units’ across the floor levels with a shared kitchen for each unit. That application was refused the same year.
A downsized application for a 68-bed HMO with onsite gym and workspace was then made in April 2025 but again rejected by Thanet council in September that year based on it undermining the viability of remaining businesses nearby because the application would be introducing an incompatible residential use to an employment site and due to there being insufficient off-street parking, in an area already suffering from significant parking demand.
An appeal was lodged and the enquiry opened on March 24 at Thanet council’s offices. In a brutal first day the evidence from Kent County Council’s Senior Transport and Development Planner Laura McDonald, particularly regarding car ownership and public transport options, was shredded by Rebecca Clutten, for the applicant, saying much of it was based on assumption and not evidence and parts were simply incorrect.
The previous refusal ground due to the land being in employment use was previously withdrawn by Thanet council as it was conceded the land was now unsuitable for that use.
Today (March 27) Thanet council dropped its objection to the appeal. The council’s representative said the objection to the appeal was based on whether there was sufficient parking for residents and the consequent impact on the highway safety.
The enquiry was told that the case “turned on the evidence of Mrs McDonald” which in turn informed the council’s planning evidence.
The council representative added that the first day of the enquiry saw a “number of concessions” made regarding Mrs McDonald’s evidence over the likely demand for car ownership at the HMO and the effect on the local highway network arising from overspill parking.
The enquiry was told: “In light of the evidence heard on the first day the council and Ms Hemmings (council officer) reviewed the strength of the council’s evidence as a matter of urgency.”
The council representative added: “The council no longer defends this appeal and accepts that the development plan and other material considerations now indicate permission should be granted.”
The enquiry has been told that if change of use permission is granted there is an option for the developer, RW Margate Ltd, to purchase the building.
No application for costs was made by either the council or the applicant.
Broadstairs councillor Mike Garner, who spoke against the application at the start of the enquiry due to parking and highway concerns, said he was disappointed with the outcome.
He said: “I share the inevitable disappointment and deep frustration of the residents who live nearby, and others, at the decision taken by the council to no longer defend their position at the public enquiry this morning.
“It is clear to everyone who lives nearby that the traffic and parking situation in the surrounding area is already untenable. The cumulative impact of this development alongside the issues already generated by the newly opened Health Hub will inevitably make things even worse and likely more dangerous for everyone.
“I personally am especially disappointed that the views of those who live nearby, who after all know the area best, have not been properly listened to at the enquiry. It seems that the system is stacked against them, no matter how much evidence is gathered and presented by them. I’m sorry to them all, especially those who’ve worked hard over the last few years to gather this evidence, that this has happened.
“It is now incumbent on both KCC and TDC to do all they can to make sure that any planning conditions agreed with the applicant as a result of this decision make sure that local residents are prioritised. It will also be important for all parking restrictions in the local area to be properly and regularly enforced.”
Previous building uses and applications
The existing accommodation building was given in 2002, serving the CCCU Broadstairs campus until it shut in 2018.
In October 2023 permission was granted to convert the building into accommodation for 84 agricultural workers at Thanet Earth, but documents say the firm was “unable to fulfil the purchase of the property”, so the plans were never implemented.
In November 2023, plans were submitted to use the building as temporary accommodation for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, but the proposal was withdrawn in August 2024.
A proposal by Thanet council to use it for homelessness provision was also not progressed after the building was procured in 2022 by Clearsprings Ready Homes, which has a contract to manage asylum seeker accommodation, although this use lasted for just three days.
The site is owned by Nelson College London which completed the purchase of the Allen & Carey Buildings and Northwood Court student accommodation in May 2022. The college runs its courses in the Allen building.
Purpose of HMOs
Explaining the purpose of HMOs a previous report from the applicant says: “HMOs play an important role in meeting the needs of those who are unable to, or otherwise choose not to, live alone.
“They can provide for a range of needs, ranging from young people who are leaving home for the first time, to catering for those who might be ‘in between’ life stages (for example, having recently separated from a partner or about to move in with a partner), those who might be combining work with study, those saving to buy their own home or those who for a range of other reasons may be in lower paid employment.
“They are particularly important in Thanet where there has been consistent and significant under-delivery of affordable housing in recent years.”
Thanet has 82 licensed HMOs which provide accommodation for between 5 and 19 people. Most are inclusive of all bills including council tax.
May I suggest we demand that a councillor spend a month there once opened and full, to see what he/she/they have created.
I tell you now this will not be good, I’m speaking from experience on a much smaller scale.
Probably not, be interesting to see who tjeaccomodation is aimed at. TDC/KCC shown to be utterly incompetent clowns yet again, but no doubt the appalling “evidence” put forward by kcc won’t even result in a poor performance review.
That’s a bit like asking them to walk 6 miles when the toilets are closed for 6 months of the year!
TDC planning committee members voted to refuse this application so I don’t understand your point. No councillor created this.
You continue to support the incompetent TDC at every level!
No, she’s right. The Councillors voted against it. The officers at TDC and especially KCC, failed to do their jobs properly.There should be an internal enquiry into this, and explanations sought.
I can do better, but I know you can’t, as you only moan, instead of offering solutions.
Councillors have their faults,after all they are politicians, but they rely on a certain level of competence from their officers.
So agreed, TDC are incompetent, but KCC are the most culpable, because the ground was cut away from TDC by that incompetent showing from KCC. Now you know why transport planning in Kent is so lacking.
As for the HMO, Mr Copland and Ms Clutton should be made to live in the HMO for a year.
It seems that this was a classic case of ”Fail to prepare – prepare to fail”. The officers were unable to substantiate the Council’s stance from the moment they were asked questions.
If you can do better, then why are you sitting at home doing jigsaw puzzles instead of putting yourself up for election?
The people who make these decisions are paid by US – and when they don’t deliver the goods, we have every right to complain. So you saying that people “only moan, instead of offering solutions”, why not? If someone gets a bad meal in a restaurant, should they be offering advice to chefs?
I suspect that the KCC officer be disappointed with this – but it must be seen in context.
KCC officers are generally not offered the technical or politicial support to do the job correctly. This officer will likely have had to continue to do their normal job role while preparing for this, largely in their own time. They won’t have been paid any overtime to prepare. They will not have had access to genuinely experienced senior colleauges with experience to guide them.
The difference between the resource/capability of the applicant and the Council will have been stark; including the skills of the respective barristers. More critically, these officers are not respected by the political leaders.
For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not from KCC or any other local council. But I am someone who acts as an expert witness in the same field for the private sector (this isn’t my real name). I can assure you being subject to any cross-examination is challenging – even more so where there is a imbalance in resources.
Worth keeping this in mind when directing critiscm towards professionals working in very challenging circumstances.
As has been said but clearly the point has been missed, TDCs Planning Committee ( made up of councillors across the political spectrum) refused this application against the officer’s recommendation citing parking issues as the main issue. How do I know that fact? Simple, I sit on the TDac Planning Committee.
Obviously that should have read ‘TDC Planning Committee’.
So the council’s professional planning officers did’nt find good reason to refuse the application, the councillors did for their own reasons, at the appeal tdc rely on kcc presentation which is found to be severely lacking and then fold like a deck chair as it’s hardly likely the councils own planning officers are going to u turn on their previous opinion in the absence of considerable chnge in the intervening period.
All a bit of a waste of time and money (if tdc become liable for the other parties costs).
Crime will rise .. no surprise
I will hazard a wild guess that the eventual occupants of said accommodation units will have all their rent and living costs paid for by the taxpayer and add to the ever burgeoning benefits bill that those residents who do work and aren’t on benefits have to pay for.
How many brown envelopes have been passed since Monday?
So Jenny, the officers opt for approval, even though parking seems to be an issue.I will suspend judgement on the morality of HMO’s and our broken housing market, but the cllrs thought differently and refused the application.
Up pops an appeal, which was not unexpected and immediate collapse of stout party in the most cringeworthy way.
What does that say about local democracy and the planning system? Anything goes ? What’s the point of a planning system? It’s meant to balance harm against profit.Where is the balance here, when officers don’t even try to sustain the case set for them by the cllrs.
Shall we do planning by AI, would that be better?
Will it affect house prices in the area ?
Oh, now watch the application increase to cram more flats into the space.
This is good news. People need affordable accommodation. Too many moaning nimbys.
So thays 68 undocumented men allowed to stay in our town at the tax payers expense. I fear for the safety of our children..