Letter: A 10 Per cent Limit on HMOs Is Sensible

Published on: 18 Jun, 2026
Updated on: 18 Jun, 2026

HMO map

From John Redpath

former R4GV borough councillor

In response to: We Need a Responsible Approach to the Problem of HMOs

The 10 per cent limit mentioned in Veronica Mansfield’s letter seems sensible and is a percentage is used by other councils.

Take the planning policy of Bristol (a university city) for instance. It states: “If 10 per cent or more of all residential properties within a 100-metre radius of a proposed HMO site are already HMOs, planning permission will generally be refused to protect local communities.”

The reason this hasn’t happened in Guildford is due to our poor Local Plan (GBC Local Plan: strategy and sites 2015 – 2034) adopted in 2019 by the then Tory administration.

Within the plan “Policy H1” states: “Planning Permission: Proposals for HMOs that require planning permission will be supported where the balance of housing types and character of the immediate locality would not be adversely affected and there is sufficient amenity space available.”

So, a wide open, unrestricted and very poor policy relies on planning committees, or the planning inspector, to decide on the balance of housing types. Had this document stated a percentage per area then a committee decision would not be necessary, instead a simple calculation.

In a similar vein ,the current Local Plan does little to protect or allow for the development of our town centre with no mention of building height restrictions etc.

Building height is covered in a “Views” Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which does not carry as much weight as the Local Plan policy in decision making, and has resulted in the 12 storey block (previously 11 storeys) in the North Street development; something that could not realistically be refused by the planning committee for fear of an expensive legal challenge by the developer to the planning inspector.

I do hope that the updated Local Plan currently being worked on by the council will have more teeth and a lot more definition on what is, and is not, allowed. Doing this will help free up planning committees from having to make decisions they should not be making.