Seven-person HMO at 36 Montgomerie Road, Southsea

What was proposed

The application sought to change a six-bedroom HMO into a seven-bedroom, seven-person HMO and retain the rear dormer.

“The proposal is for the change of use of the property from a six-bedroom HMO (Class C4) to a 7-Bedroom - 7-Person House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis).”

“The application also includes some external works. The proposed works include retention of the rear dormer, and reduction in the depth of the single-storey rear extension (this reduction of the extension does not require planning permission). The rear dormer does not benefit from permitted development rights because it was constructed with a clear glazed side window. Some internal reconfigurations of the layout would be required to facilitate the change of use.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a two-storey terraced dwelling with roofspace, a front forecourt, a modest rear garden and no off-street parking.

“The application site is a two-storey (with additional roofspace floor) terraced dwelling within a predominantly residential area. It is located to the northern side of Montgomerie Road. The property has a front forecourt and modest rear garden. The site has no off- street parking.”

“The site is approximately 600m from Albert Road and Elm Grove District Centre, and approximately 600m from Fratton District Centre, where there are a range of shops, leisure, employment and services, and local buses. The nearest train station is Fratton, approximately 700m from the site. The site is within LB Somerstown Resident Parking Zone, operating 7 days a week 24 hours a day.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for larger or differently occupied HMOs were refused or dismissed because of concerns about internal and external living space.

“24/00477/PLAREG Retrospective application for the change of use from C4 HMO to 7 bed/8 person HMO (sui generis) - Refused. Given the previous decision on site constitutes a material consideration, the proposed living environment was scrutinised closely. The proposed indoor and outdoor amenity space were deemed to provide unsatisfactory living conditions. 21 June 2024”

“24/01044/PLAREG Retrospective application for change of use from house in multiple occupation (Class C4) to 7-bed/8-person house in multiple occupation - Refused and appeal dismissed. The proposed internal and external living space were deemed to provide unsatisfactory living conditions. In particular, bedroom 4 was deemed insufficient for double occupancy, and the lack of external amenity space considering the siting of the proposed bike store. 13 August 2025”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers concluded the occupancy increase was not a material change, the dormer was acceptable and unconditional permission should be granted.

“As detailed above, the application is considered to fully comply with the relevant policies of the Local Plan. However, notwithstanding the compliance or otherwise of the proposal with the polices of the Local Plan, it is noted that on the details of this case, the changes in the character of activities are not sufficiently significant, as a matter of fact and degree, to result in a material change in the use of this property and retention of the dormer is acceptable.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

Highways and Private Sector Housing raised no objection, with officers noting parking constraints, suitable living space and a likely licensing requirement.

“No objection. Given the constraints of the site, no off-street parking can be accommodated within the curtilage of the property. The CPZ zone (MB) is currently at below capacity (86%).”

“No objection. There is suitable living space for the proposed number of occupants. The property would likely require a licence under Part 2, Housing Act 2004. The property has an HMO licence for eight occupants valid until 6/11/2027.”

Officer report

Objections received

Six representations opposed the scheme, raising concerns about HMO concentration, intensification, neighbours’ amenity, living conditions and local services.

“Six representations have been received in respect of the proposals. All object to the scheme. None of the objections received are from the adjoining properties originally notified by letter of the proposals in Montgomerie Road, St Andrews Road or Bradford Road.”

“Over-intensification of use despite repeated failed applications; • Excessive concentration of HMOs; • Loss of family housing and community balance; • Amenity impacts on neighbours; • Concerns about living conditions within the HMO; • Pressure on local infrastructure and services.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant addressed the committee, while officers and the Head of Development Management clarified the proposal and supplementary information.

Members’ debate

Members discussed emerging HMO policy, earlier refusals and broader intensification concerns, but recognised that planning reasons could only be considered if permission was required.

“Members' Comments Members noted the limited scope for objection given officer advice that no planning permission was required. Members were advised that a new Local Plan was progressing, with examination expected in the autumn. The emerging policy would address HMO concentrations in a similar way to the existing 10% threshold, with a focus on limiting further intensification in areas of high density.”

“It was emphasised that, although more acceptable than earlier proposals, the scheme still raised broader concerns regarding incremental intensification of HMOs in already densely populated areas. It was clarified that the application proposed fewer occupants than the earlier refused scheme but remained an increase of one occupant above the established lawful use.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Members agreed the application did not require planning permission and resolved to grant unconditional permission without creating a precedent.

“Members agreed that, due to the specific characteristics of the application, it did not require planning permission and that this should not set a precedent for future cases.”

“RESOLVED that this planning application did not require planning permission and therefore unconditional permission be granted.”

Minutes