Eight-person HMO at 50 Chetwynd Road, Southsea

What was proposed

The application sought to increase an existing HMO from four occupants to eight people in eight 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 8 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 - Two bedrooms (single occupancy); shared shower room with WC and hand basin; shared WC; communal combined amenity area; • First Floor - Three bedrooms (single occupancy); shared shower room with WC and handbasin; • Second floor - Three bedrooms (single occupancy); shared shower room with WC and hand basin…”

Officer report

Earlier applications and use

The property had an HMO licence for up to four occupants, while an earlier eight-person proposal was refused and its appeal dismissed.

“The property does not benefit from a lawful development certificate or planning consent for the previous change of use from C3 to C4. However, the property currently benefits from an HMO licence issued for the period 06.09.2024-05.09.2029 for up to four occupants and the applicant has informally demonstrated a lawful use with tenancy agreements from 01.08.2014 to 04.08.2026.”

“25/01505/FUL Change of use from house in multiple occupation (Class C4) to 8 person/8 bedroom house in multiple occupation (sui generis) Refused under delegated powers due to lack of outlook from communal area, and small outdoor space, 16.02.2026. Appeal dismissed 29.06.26.”

Officer report

What people said

Eighteen objections raised concerns about HMO numbers, overcrowding, disturbance, parking, waste, outdoor space, neighbours and impacts on services and protected areas.

“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 including inadequate outdoor space • Loss of a family dwelling • Concerns over waste storage • Impact of extensions on neighbour light and privacy • Proliferation of applications • Impact of development on Special Protection Area • No site notice provided - a site notice was placed on…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard deputations against and in favour of the application, including from the applicant, the agent and a councillor speaking for another councillor.

What members debated

Members discussed over-intensification, existing bedrooms in the street, neighbourhood character, possible anti-social behaviour, emerging policy, outdoor space and mitigation requirements.

“Members' Comments In discussion, members made the following comments: • Members were concerned that doubling the number of occupants from four to eight was over-intensification of development. There were already 58 bedrooms across 13 properties in the street. They asked how many rooms in the area were vacant.”

“If approved, the proposal would contribute further to overcrowding and disrupt the character of the neighbourhood. There could be a possible increase in anti-social behaviour and conflicts regardless of individual tenants' behaviour. • The proposal was contrary to PLP20 of the emerging Local Plan. • Officers pointed out that when a property materially changed use from C4 to sui generis there was a need to mitigate the impact of recreation and nitrates.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to refuse the application because occupancy would double, outdoor space remained inadequate, emerging HMO policy was not met and nitrate mitigation was insufficient.

“RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons - the proposal would constitute over-intensification of development as the number of occupants would double; outdoor space is still inadequate; 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 meet the policy on nitrate mitigation for Special Protection Areas.”

Minutes