Seven-person HMO at 16 Tottenham Road, Portsmouth

What was proposed

The application sought to change an existing six-person HMO into a seven-bedroom, seven-person HMO through internal room changes only.

“CHANGE OF USE FROM HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (CLASS C4), TO 7 BEDROOM/ 7 PERSON HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (SUI GENERIS)”

“The Applicant has sought planning permission for the change of use of the dwelling from the current lawful use of as a HMO with up to six individuals living together to allow up to 7 individuals to live together as an HMO. This change in occupancy will involve the repurposing of internal rooms but no external operational development forms part of this application.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier decisions included a 2012 mixed residential use approval and a 2026 certificate confirming the lawful HMO use.

“App No 26/00259/CPE - Certificate of Existing Lawful Use for C4 (House in Multiple Occupation) Decision - APPROVE. The LPA were satisfied that the provided evidence was enough to demonstrate a lawful use of C4 (House in Multiple Occupation) for the relevant period. Date 9/6/2026”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers considered the extra occupant would not materially affect HMO balance, living standards, neighbours, parking or protected areas, and recommended permission.

“- Public - 8.11 Similarly the minor 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.”

“A key and overriding consideration in this case is the necessity to recognise the fallback position available to the applicant; that is the position they could take if this application is refused. In this case the addition of 1 occupant to the existing lawful HMO is not considered to amount to a material change in the use of the dwelling.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised no objection but noted possible parking pressure and requested a secure cycle storage condition; private housing had not responded.

“Highways: no objection. Tottenham Road is a residential road with bus stops and local amenities in close proximity along Fratton Road. It is not considered that size of development would lead to a material impact to the function of the highway or result in any unacceptable safety impact. No off-road parking can be accommodated and therefore may increase parking pressure in the vicinity. This however is a matter of residential amenity for your consideration.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Head of Development Management introduced the report and supplementary matters, and no deputations were made.

Members’ concerns

Members debated cumulative HMO impacts, bathroom access, the additional bedroom, living standards, missing floor plans and whether the property was overdeveloped.

“Concerns were raised regarding the internal layout of the property, particularly the distribution of bathroom facilities. It was noted that the arrangement could result in occupants from upper floors needing to access facilities on lower floors, which was considered impractical and potentially detrimental to living conditions.”

“Members sought clarification on the location of the proposed additional bedroom. It was confirmed that the additional bedroom would be created through the conversion of an existing ground floor lounge space, with no wider reconfiguration of the property layout. Members expressed broader concern regarding the incremental intensification of HMOs, noting that properties originally approved with communal space were subsequently altered to increase bedroom numbers.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A majority supported treating the increase as requiring planning permission, despite officers’ advice about appeal risks and previous unsuccessful refusals.

“It was noted that, although the area did not exceed the 10% HMO threshold, the principle of cumulative impact remained a material consideration. Officers advised that appeal decisions had consistently found that an increase from six to seven occupants did not constitute a material change of use requiring planning permission.”

“A proposal was made that the increase in occupancy should be treated as requiring planning permission, based on the potential adverse impact on residential amenity. The committee voted that the proposal should be treated as requiring planning permission. A majority of members supported this position, enabling further consideration of the application on its planning merits.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee granted conditional planning permission after recognising that the scheme complied with adopted standards and relevant planning policy.

“It was ultimately recognised that, despite these concerns, the scheme complied with the Council’s adopted standards and relevant planning policy.”

“RESOLVED that conditional planning permission be granted.”

Minutes