Seven-person HMO at 135 Kirby Road, Portsmouth
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Portsmouth Planning Committee on 17 Jun 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought to change a dwelling into a seven-bedroom, seven-person house in multiple occupation, with cycle and waste storage.
“The proposal is for the change of use of the property from a dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a 7 Bedroom - 7 Person House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis).”
“From the planning history section in 4. below, Members will note a previous submission for prior approval for a Larger Home Extension (26/00003/GPDC) on the site. Due to a failure to issue a decision within the statutory 56 day period, a Deemed Consent accrued to the applicant on this application.”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers considered the change of use acceptable and recommended conditional permission, subject to a legal agreement securing Solent protection mitigation.
“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:”
“(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);”
Officer report
What residents said
All 61 representations objected, citing parking and infrastructure pressure, HMO concentration, disturbance, waste, drainage, community harm and other concerns.
“Local amenity pressure and infrastructure pressure. Demand exceeding capacity for doctors, dentists and local health care. • Parking is limited in Copnor, increasing demand on street parking. Parking permits elsewhere in the city 'pushing' more vehicles into the area. Residents dictated on how and when they can use their vehicles. Planning Committee have previously refused developments in Copnor due to parking concerns. Impact of school drop off and pick up on parking.”
“- Public - • Cumulative impact of HMOs in the area, from a greater intensity of use than a traditional family dwelling. Sub-letting concerns, couples sharing rooms and occupancy exceeding the stated figure. • Drainage impacts, strain on sewer network, local drainage impacts such as rainwater failing to drain in adverse weather conditions.”
Officer report
Who spoke
The meeting heard from two objectors and a councillor speaking as an objector.
What members discussed
Members recognised residents’ concerns about the extension and neighbouring amenity but accepted that planning law, policy and appeal risks limited refusal grounds.
“Members acknowledged the level of public concern and expressed sympathy with local residents. However, it was also recognised that the application must be determined in accordance with planning law and policy.”
“It was noted that the proposal met the relevant planning policy requirements, including standards relating to room sizes and separation distances between HMOs. Members acknowledged that the Council had limited grounds on which to refuse the application and that similar cases had been unsuccessful at appeal.”
Minutes
The committee’s decision
A refusal proposal was withdrawn, and the committee granted delegated authority for conditional permission subject to the legal agreement and related authority.
“A proposal to refuse the application was put forward but subsequently reluctantly withdrawn due to the absence of substantiated material planning reasons. The committee felt that there was no option but to pass this application despite members being unhappy with the proposal.”
“RESOLVED 1) Delegated authority was 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) Delegated authority was granted to the…”
Minutes
The members' reasons
“Members acknowledged that the Council had limited grounds on which to refuse the application and that similar cases had been unsuccessful at appeal.”
“The committee felt that there was no option but to pass this application despite members being unhappy with the proposal.”
Minutes
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- Portsmouth Planning Committee minutes, 17 June 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Portsmouth's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Portsmouth Planning Committee
- Council
- Portsmouth
- Date
- Wednesday 17 June 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- Portsmouth committee decisions →
This committee's year
79 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 16 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.