Seven-person HMO at 252 Havant Road, Portsmouth

What was proposed

The application sought a seven-bedroom, seven-person HMO, mansard roof, bicycle store, parking and a retained ground-floor commercial unit.

“Ground Floor - Commercial Unit (existing) with kitchenette, WC, store. Side access to HMO with communal kitchen, utility room, WC”

“The external changes proposed include the following: • Mansard Roof extension, with one north facing window with Juliet balcony, one west facing window with a Brise Soliel to angle views away from the neighbouring kitchen window, and one standard window. • Frosted glass balustrading to the existing ground floor balcony/platform area, to enclose this space for privacy.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey semi-detached commercial building with a ground-floor funeral-care use, first-floor flat and one rear parking space.

“The application site comprises a two-storey semi-detached commercial building located on the southern side of Havant Road. The site is occupied by 'Co Op Funeral Care' Use Class E at ground floor with a residential flat at first floor level. The property is the western of a pair of commercial properties, and features a gabled-roof frontage, with first floor bay window. The ground floor frontage is a standard shopfront, with a fascia board advert.”

“The surrounding area has a mixed character with varied building and roof forms. The immediate area is predominantly two-storey, with notable exceptions to the east, is a three storey commercial flat roof building and to the north is a four-storey residential building 'Langstone Court'. Further to the west are other examples of three and four storey buildings. To the south is Aldsworth Close a two-storey residential terrace, which backs onto the rear of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A previous nine-person HMO was refused and is at appeal, while a nearby eight-person HMO was allowed on appeal.

“As noted above, the application follows a, currently at appeal, application for a 9 Bed/9 Person HMO on the same site. This application was refused at Planning Committee on the 1 st October 2025, against officer recommendation, for the following reasons:”

“The previous application is currently at appeal stage, but as of the time of writing, has not yet been decided. A similar application nearby at 246 Havant Road, was also refused planning permission at the same committee meeting of 1 st October 2025. This was for a Class E ground floor use to 8 bed 8 person HMO with a mansard roof.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended conditional permission, concluding that the revised proposal addressed earlier refusal reasons and complied with relevant planning policies.

“Having regard to all material planning considerations and representations it is concluded that the proposed change of use is acceptable and would be in accordance with the relevant policies of the Portsmouth Plan (2012), the HMO SPD, and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2024).”

“RECOMMENDATION I - That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to Grant Conditional Permission subject to satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure:”

Officer report

Objections received

Ten representations objected over commercial-space loss, disturbance, overlooking, design, parking, access, waste, HMO concentration and related concerns.

“Loss and reduction of active ground floor commercial floorspace within the Local/District Centre, likely making the unit unviable and harming vitality and viability, with conflict with retail protection policy • Significant increase in noise, disturbance and general activity from a 7‑bed HMO, including comings and goings at all hours, harm to neighbours' residential amenity • Overlooking, loss of privacy, and reduced outlook/light to neighbouring properties due to the…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker opposed the application and the applicant spoke in favour.

Members’ discussion

Members heard that the revised application looked better, had two fewer bedrooms, and that several access and building-use matters had legal or factual limits.

“Members' Questions In response to questions, officers provided the following information as clarification: • It was up to the applicant if they would withdraw their appeal against refusal for the previous application if the present one was successful. • Officers agreed the present application looked much better. • There was no evidence that the whole building was Class E use.”

“Members' Comments Members noted the application had two bedrooms fewer and was better than the previous one.”

Minutes

The committee’s resolution

The committee resolved to delegate authority for conditional permission, with further authority over conditions and refusal if the agreement was not completed.

“RESOLVED that: 1. Delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to Grant Conditional Permission subject to satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure: (a) the mitigation of the impact of the proposed residential development on Solent Special Protection Areas (recreational disturbance and nitrates) by securing the payment of a financial contribution and relevant conditions (below); 2.”

Minutes

Permission safeguards

The proposed conditions covered cycle storage, water efficiency, waste, materials, noise insulation, commercial uses and hours, and a seven-person maximum.

“The proposal hereby permitted shall not (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA) be occupied until written documentary evidence has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that the development has achieved a maximum water use of 110 litres per person per day as defined in paragraph 36(2)b of the Building Regulations (2010) (as amended).”

“Prior to the occupation of the HMO, a scheme of sound insulation measures designed to reduce the transmission of airborne sound between commercial and residential uses shall be submitted to the planning authority. These measures shall ensure that the separating floors and walls (where appropriate) can achieve a minimum standard of Dntw+Ctr 50dB. Upon approval these measures shall be implemented and thereafter maintained.”

Officer report