Seven-person HMO at 43 Baileys Road, Southsea

What was proposed

The application sought to increase an existing HMO from four occupants to seven people in seven bedrooms, with internal remodelling and a bike store.

“The Applicant has sought planning permission for the change of use of the dwelling from the current lawful use of as an HMO, which was last occupied by up to four individuals living together, to allow up to 7 individuals to live together as an HMO. The proposed internal accommodation, with room sizes set out in Table 1 later in this report, comprises the following:”

“Ground Floor - one bedroom (single occupancy); shared shower room with WC and hand basin; shared WC and hand basin; communal combined amenity area; • First Floor - Three bedrooms (single occupancy); shared shower room with WC and handbasin; • Second floor - Three bedrooms (single occupancy)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey mid-terraced dwelling in a mainly residential area, near public transport, services and a resident parking zone.

“The application site is a two-storey mid-terraced dwelling with in a predominately residential area. Most other properties in the immediate vicinity of the application site are also terraced dwellings, with a variety of alterations, including rear extensions and dormers, similar to those proposed to be constructed under permitted development at this site.”

“The application site is located in an accessible location, with Fratton Rail Station an approximate 10-minute walk (800m) to the north east. Frequent bus services are also available on Winston Churchill Avenue. Facilities such as shops, employment and leisure are also located nearby with the Fawcett Road Local Centre located close by to the east. The site is also close to the city centre. The application site is located within the LB Resident Parking Zone.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and licence

Earlier permissions allowed C3 or C4 use, and the property had an HMO licence for four people issued in January 2025.

“13/00630/FUL Change of use from house in multiple occupation (Class C4) to purposes falling within Class C3 (dwelling house) or Class C4 (house in multiple occupation) Conditional Permission 18.09.2013”

“The application site currently holds an HMO licence issued 22.01.2025 for occupation by 4 persons.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the change acceptable and recommended conditional permission, subject to a legal agreement securing mitigation for Solent protection areas.

“RECOMMENDATION I - That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to Grant Conditional Permission subject to satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure:”

“(a) the mitigation of the impact of the proposed residential development on Solent Special Protection Areas (recreational disturbance and nitrates) by securing the payment of a financial contribution and relevant conditions (below);”

Officer report

Officers’ main findings

Officers found the accommodation met space standards, highways impacts were acceptable, and the increased occupancy did not justify refusal on parking or amenity grounds.

“Similarly, the increase of occupants is not considered to have a demonstrable impact on the parking need and thus parking availability in the wider area. It is noted that the Council's adopted Parking Standards, within the associated SPD has the same expectation for the number of parking spaces - 2 spaces per dwelling - for any scale of HMO with 4 or more bedrooms.”

“II. It is worth noting that this is the only time the word 'severe' appears in the Framework and sets a very high bar in justifying the refusal of planning permission on highway grounds. A refusal must be supported by objective evidence - as opposed to the simply anecdotal - which both demonstrates the impacts of existing parking capacity in the vicinity and that the proposed development will demonstrably result in an unacceptable additional harm to highway safety.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Seven objections raised concerns about HMO numbers, overdevelopment, services, disturbance, crime, parking, accommodation, family housing and waste storage.

“Number of HMOs in the road • Overcrowding and over development • Undue strain on local services and infrastructure, including sewage, drainage, waste management and Doctors/Dentists • Increase in noise and disturbance • Increase in crime and anti-social behaviour • Lack of car parking provision leading to an increase in traffic and exacerbation of existing on-street parking problems…”

“Concerns over the layout and standard of accommodation being provided • Loss of a family dwelling • Concerns over waste storage…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant and the agent each gave a deputation supporting the application.

What members debated

Members discussed HMO concentration, emerging policy, housing supply, amenity, garden space and whether three additional occupants would over-intensify the property.

“PLP20.2 stated that in areas where concentrations of HMOs exceeded the 10% threshold, proposals that sought intensified use (change of use of C4 or C3/C4 to sui generis or increased occupation of an existing HMO) would only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. It was not the current proposal that was exceptional but the balance and position of the emerging policy which did not have full weight yet.”

“Asking for the 10% threshold in the 50m radius to be reduced to 5% risked jeopardising having a limit at all. • As well as the reduced garden space, the application would put pressure on residential amenities and undermine mixed and balanced communities as there were already far too many HMOs in the area. The harm would outweigh the benefits and was over-intensification. The HMO threshold in the area was exceeded by about 30 to 70%.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee refused because the proposal would over-intensify development, harm existing residents, provide inadequate outdoor space and fail emerging HMO and protection-area policies.

“RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons - the proposal would constitute over-intensification of development by increasing the number of occupants from four to seven and would have a detrimental effect on those already living in the area; outdoor space is inadequate for the proposed number of occupants; it would not satisfy the policy of the emerging Local Plan on increasing occupancy in areas already over the 10% threshold for HMOs; it would not…”

Minutes