9-person shared house at 48 Park Road, Southampton

What was proposed

The application sought to extend and convert a dwelling into a nine-person HMO, with bedrooms, shared facilities, storage, garden space and three parking spaces.

“Proposal 2.1 Planning permission is sought to extend and convert the building into a 9 person House in Multiple Occupation (HM)). The description of the proposal has been amended to better reflect the drawings as shown as the extensions shown would extend to the side and rear of the property.”

“Once extended the ground floor would contain 6 bedrooms as well as a kitchen/diner, and the upper floor would contain 3 further bedrooms (9 in total). The rear garden would be accessed through the shared kitchen/dining area. Shared refuse and cycle storage is provided along with the large shared garden, and frontage parking for at least 3 vehicles is provided.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a detached two-storey dwelling in a mainly residential area containing flats, shops, a public house and a contractors’ yard.

“48 Park Road sits within the Freemantle ward of the city which is primarily made up of Victorian era properties, many of which are semi-detached. The application site appears to have been formerly occupied by three dwellings at the beginning of the 20 th century but is now occupied by a detached dwelling.”

“The immediate area surrounding the site is mixed but primarily residential, with some flats to the south of the site as well as shops, a public house (The Wellington Arms) and a contractors yard on the corner of Park Road and Kingston Road.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

A side extension had a lawful development certificate and a rear extension had prior approval; neither had been built.

“A single storey side extension has been confirmed as meeting the criteria of permitted development (reference 26/00635/PLDC) and a single storey rear extension has been granted prior approval (reference 26/00688/PAH).”

“As the extensions have not been built and they facilitate a change of use, they fall for consideration under this application, albeit they have a fallback position within the change of use proposals.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission subject to the Solent mitigation contribution, concluding that the proposal complied with relevant policies and did not cause significant character, amenity or highway harm.

“A nitrates budget calculator has been submitted since the validation of the application, which sets out the nitrogen emissions to be mitigated. A Grampian condition will require the requisite number of credits from the Eastleigh Nutrient offset scheme to be secured prior to the occupation of the large HMO. The SDMP contribution will be secured by officers prior to releasing permission as per the delegation sought in the above recommendation.”

“It is recommended to Delegate to the Head of Transport and Planning to grant planning permission subject to the planning conditions recommended at the end of this report and the payment of a contribution towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project (SDMP)”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Eight residents objected over intensity, noise, living conditions, parking, extensions, safety, wildlife, pollution and infrastructure; highways and Southern Water raised no objection.

“Increased occupancy would place additional pressure on local infrastructure and services, including drainage, utilities and healthcare facilities. Response Given the limited change in scale of development the proposal is not considered to increase the pressure on the services identified such that additional upgrades are necessary.”

“Natural England No comments received Southern Water Due to legislative changes, certain Southern Water sewers are not comprehensively mapped. There are no public sewers recorded within the site boundary. However, the relevant requirements, conditions and application associated with the build-over/close-to a public sewer are available at Southern Water's Get Connected service.”

Officer report

Who addressed the Panel

Local residents, the agent and a ward councillor addressed the Panel, while statements from other residents were received, circulated, read and published.

Members’ changes

Members discussed parking, landscaping, drainage, fencing, permitted development rights and rear-garden access, leading officers to accept extra conditions and request amended plans.

“The presenting officer reported that they recommending adding an additional condition 10 to address boundary treatments. The presenting officer also reported that the following corrections to the report were issued: • Paragraph 6.2.1 Policy H01 of the NPPF corrected to refer to Policy H07 • It was advised that Policy S4 of the NPPF strengthens the presumption in favour of development within cities and that substantial harm would be required to outweigh the benefits of the…”

“During discussion on the item, members raised the issue and officers agreed to amend their recommendation by the inclusion of an additional conditions 9, 10 and 11 in respect of marked parking bays, landscaping including sustainable drainage and fencing, and permitted development rights as set out in full below.”

Minutes

The vote

The Panel confirmed the Habitats Regulation Assessment, then carried the amended recommendations by three votes to two, with one abstention.

“Upon being put to the vote the Panel confirmed the Habitats Regulation Assessment.”

“The Panel then considered the amended recommendations (2) and (3) set out below. Upon being put to the vote the recommendations as amended were carried.”

Minutes

The final decision

Authority was delegated to grant permission subject to the mitigation contribution and satisfactory plans maintaining a 0.9-metre northern separation gap.

“That authority be delegated to the Director of Transport and Planning to grant planning permission subject to (i) securing a financial contribution towards the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project (SDMP) and (ii) the receipt of satisfactory amended site and floorplans to show a development that maintains a minimum separation gap between the approved building and the northern boundary of 0.9m to enable access to refuse and cycles in the rear garden.”

“In the event that the financial contribution is not completed and/or the receipt of the amended plans is not forthcoming within a reasonable period following the Panel meeting, the Director of Transport and Planning be authorised to refuse permission on the ground of failure to the required contribution and the resulting harm to the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and/or the unsatisfactory access provided for all users of the development to the approved refuse and cycle…”

Minutes

Extra conditions

Additional requirements covered marked parking spaces, landscaping and boundaries, permeable surfacing and drainage, lighting, planting and restrictions on future extensions.

“(i) all means of enclosure including details of the northern and southern boundary fences, a boundary wall along the back edge of pavement to a height of no more than 1m; car parking layouts to show a maximum of 3 car parking spaces with means to prevent additional; other vehicle pedestrian access and circulations areas, hard surfacing materials including permeable surfacing and/or appropriate drainage, external lighting, structures and ancillary objects; (ii) planting…”

“The approved hard and soft landscaping scheme (including parking) for the whole site shall be carried out prior to occupation of the building or during the first planting season following the full completion of building works, whichever is sooner.”

Minutes