Eight-person HMO at 104 Stubbington Avenue, Portsmouth

What was proposed

The application sought to convert a dwelling into an eight-bedroom, eight-person HMO, with a rear extension and L-shaped dormer.

“CHANGE OF USE FROM DWELLINGHOUSE (CLASS C3) TO 8 PERSON/8 BEDROOM HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (SUI GENERIS), INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND L SHAPE DORMER TO REAR ROOFSLOPES”

“There is an existing rear roof dormer on the principal rear roof slope only. It would be removed and replaced with a larger, L-shaped rear dormer. The Applicant has stated that the larger proposed roof extension, shown across all the rear roofs, can be achieved under Permitted Development and would be constructed in order to facilitate the change of use. Nevertheless, the proposed roof extension is included within the development description.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a mid-terrace home with front and rear gardens, no off-street parking and a side alley leading to the rear.

“The application site is a mid-terrace property with a front and rear garden on the southern side of Stubbington Avenue. There is a side alleyway adjacent to the site (between nos. 104 and 102) leading to the rear alleyway providing side access to the application site. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character with mostly terraced properties. There is no off-street parking available on site.”

“The site is approximately 500m from the North End District Centre, where there are a range of shops, leisure, employment and services, and local buses. There is no Resident Parking Zone in the vicinity and no parking restrictions locally. The nearest local park is College Park located approximately 550m to the north east of the site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers concluded that the proposal was acceptable and recommended conditional permission, subject to securing Solent protection mitigation through a legal agreement.

“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

Main planning issues

The main issues included the HMO principle, accommodation standards, neighbours’ living conditions, parking, waste and Solent protection.

“The main issues for consideration in the determination of the application are considered to be as follows:”

“The principle of development; • The standard of accommodation; • Impact on neighbouring living conditions; • Highways and Parking; • Waste; • Impact upon the Solent Protection Areas; • Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) • Any other matters raised; and • Human Rights.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways and Private Sector Housing raised no objection, while cycle storage was suggested and licensing requirements were noted.

“No objection. Stubbington Road is a residential road considered that size of deveany unacceptable safety impact. Stubbington Road is a residential road with bus stops and local amenities in close proximity along London 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. Cycle storage conditions suggested.”

“No objection. The property would likely require a licence under Part 2, Housing Act 2004. The property does not have a current HMO licence. The room sizes and facilities within the plans appear to be appropriate.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Development Management Lead presented the report, and the agent and applicant made deputations.

Members’ questions and comments

Members questioned light, the rear extension, ceiling height, the building line and the visibility of the lowered floor.

“Although the original building line could not be confirmed with certainty, aerial photographs and historic maps had been reviewed and as a precaution, the rear extension was included in the planning application rather than being treated as permitted development. Officers did not consider its impact on the neighbouring property sufficient to justify refusal.”

“Members' Comments A member suggested that the committee receive a future report on ceiling-height requirements and related policies, including how these are dealt with elsewhere, so members could consider whether to advise the Cabinet Member on any potential changes to policy.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to grant conditional permission, with delegated authority for the legal agreement, conditions and possible refusal if agreement was not reached.

“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.”

“Delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to refuse planning permission if a legal agreement has not been satisfactorily agreed within one month of the date of this resolution.”

Minutes