Seven-person HMO at 3 Lawson Road, Southsea

What was proposed

The applicant sought permission to increase the lawful HMO from six to seven occupants, using an additional internal bedroom without external works.

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

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey terraced dwelling in a residential area, with a rear garden, cycle and waste storage, and no off-street parking.

“The application site is a two-storey terraced dwelling with rooms in the roof in a predominately residential area. It is located to the southern side of Lawson Road. The property does not have a front forecourt; however it has a rear garden which can accommodate cycle and waste storage. The site has no off-street parking.”

“The site is approximately 660m from Albert Road and Elm Grove District Centre, where there are a range of shops, leisure, employment and services, and local buses. The nearest train station is Fratton, approximately 600m from the site. The site is within MB – Orchard Road Resident Parking Zone, operating 4pm to 6pm daily.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A certificate confirmed the existing lawful HMO use, following earlier permission for HMO or dwellinghouse use.

“26/00155/CPE Application for lawful development for existing use as a House in Multiple Occupation (Class C4) - Certificate of existing lawful use granted.”

“14/00168/FUL Change of use from house in multiple occupation (Class C4) to purposes falling within Class C4 (house in multiple occupation) or Class C3 (dwellinghouse) - permission 16.04.2014”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the increase immaterial, compliant with standards, unlikely to harm neighbours or parking, and recommended unconditional permission.

“The proposal would increase the occupancy of the existing HMO by one occupant. While this would have a proportionate increase in activity within and coming and going from the property, this small increase in the number of residents is not considered likely to have any demonstrable adverse effect on residential amenity for neighbours of the surrounding area.”

“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.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Private Sector Housing and Highways raised no objection, while Highways noted the controlled parking zone and proposed secure cycle storage.

“Private Sector Housing: No objection. Based on the layout and sizes provided with this application this property would require to be licenced under Part 2, Housing Act 2004.”

“Highways: No objection. Given the constraints of the site, no off-street parking can be accommodated within the curtilage of the property. It is noted that the parking within the vicinity is controlled under the MB CPZ which is operating within capacity (85%). The proposal does indicate secure cycle storage to the rear of the property. If you are minded to approve the application, a suitably worded condition should be attached.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in favour, and a councillor read a deputation against the application on behalf of another councillor.

Members’ discussion

Members debated over-intensification and local saturation, while officers warned refusal carried significant appeal and costs risks because permission was unnecessary.

“Members' Comments In discussion, members made the following comments: • The change from C4 to sui generis was a material change of use. • The proposal was over-intensification of development as the area was already highly saturated with 72 bedrooms across 16 properties. The emerging Local Plan made clear such proposals were only allowed in exceptional circumstances. A radius of 5% would have no effect when HMOs already represented 24% properties.”

“It was considered one extra person made no material difference to waste or parking requirements, noise or anti-social behaviour. • Officers agreed it was a good point as to why applications came to the committee when they did not need planning permission. It was unusual in their experience and unsatisfactory as applicants would normally apply for a Certificate of Lawfulness.”

Minutes