House in multiple occupation at 92 Gladys Avenue, Portsmouth

The site and surroundings

The site is a three-storey semi-detached home without off-street parking in a mainly residential area of mostly terraced properties.

“The application site comprises of a three-storey semi-detached dwelling located to the eastern side of Gladys Avenue. The property has a front forecourt and a rear garden. There is a side access to the property, however there is no rear access. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character with mostly terraced properties. There is no off-street parking available on site.”

“The site is approximately 600m from the North End District Centre, where there are a range of shops, leisure, employment and services, and local buses. The application site is 250m from the nearest green space (Alexandra Park). The site is outside of Parking Zone (FD – Bevis Road).”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

Highways, private housing and waste officers raised no objections, although private housing noted the proposed kitchen and dining space did not meet its combined-space requirement.

“No objection. The property would require a licence under Part 2, Housing Act 2004. The space and amenity standards for new HMOs require a combined living space of 34m2 for 6 sharing occupiers. However, the proposed plans show a kitchen/diner measuring 26.5m2. There are also two additional study rooms and one additional living room, although no measurements have been provided for these.”

“No objection. The property would require 360-litre waste bins. The inclusion of 140-litre bins on the submitted plans is unnecessary, as these would be replaced by the required 360-litre bins. Existing bins would be removed when the new bins are delivered, which must be arranged and paid for prior to first occupation. Residents would also be required to place the bins on the pavement for collection on scheduled waste collection days.”

Officer report

What residents said

Eleven representations opposed the scheme, citing parking, too many HMOs, antisocial behaviour, overdevelopment, infrastructure, road character and loss of family housing.

“Eleven representations have been received in respect of the proposals. All object to the scheme. Included in the letters of objection is an objection from Councillor Simpson who also called the application in for determination by the Planning Committee, on the grounds of overdevelopment, increased parking pressures, impact on sewage system, possible increase in anti-social behaviour, impact on NHS services, change to the character of the road.”

“Overdevelopment of the property; • Impact on local infrastructure and services; • Change to the character of the road; • S.257 HMOs are not accounted for in the Officers' HMO data count; • Plans are the same as the refused scheme and the property will likely be used in line with the refused scheme (9 person HMO); • Proposed section drawing shows 9 bedrooms; • The 10% threshold should be reduced to 5%; • Loss of family dwelling.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s representative spoke in favour, while Councillor Russell Simpson spoke against the application.

Members’ debate

Members considered that 80 Gladys Avenue should be counted within the radius and discussed a possible condition limiting bedroom use.

“If 80 Gladys Avenue was included in the 50m radius then the application could be refused on the grounds that it would undermine mixed and balanced communities as it would exceed the 10% threshold. • Members said if the circles on the plans were drawn digitally then they should be perfect, but they were not. From a certain angle the circumference was pulled away from 80 Gladys Avenue i.e. the circle was not perfect.”

“Detail was important so that members could enforce the 10% policy. In the printed copy the radius hit the boundary of 80 Gladys Avenue so it should be included in the count. They were surprised something so important and contentious was relying on something not very good. As 80 Gladys Avenue was in the 50m radius they had no choice but to reject the proposal as it harmed mixed and balanced communities.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because it considered the proposal would exceed the 10% HMO limit within the 50-metre radius.

“RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons - the proposal would breach policy PCS20 in that the 10% limit of HMOs in a 50m radius would be exceeded.”

Minutes