Six-person HMO at 17 Malvern Road, Southampton

What was proposed

The application sought to convert a three-bedroom dwelling into a six-bedroom, six-person HMO with a single-storey rear extension.

“Proposal 2.1 Following the receipt of amended plans the proposal seeks to convert the existing property from a 3-bedroom C3 dwellinghouse into a C4 HMO for 6 persons, with 6 bedrooms, each with an en-suite bathroom. There is a large proposed kitchen, dining lounge room located at the rear of the ground floor, with a further communal bathroom. This application follows a refusal for an 8 bedroom HMO, which is currently at appeal.”

“There are no additional external alterations proposed to the property from those that have been previously approved under different permissions; both for a single storey rear extension and roof alterations and rear dormer in in consents 26/00014/FUL and 26/00053/PLDC respectively.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey semi-detached house in a mainly residential area, with a driveway, long rear garden and controlled nearby parking.

“The application site comprises a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling forming part of a matching pair with traditional hipped roof shape with small front gable above the first-floor windows and a bay window at ground floor. The property has a driveway to the front and side of the property, leading to a long rear garden.”

“Parking along Malvern Road and the majority of nearby roads is controlled by a residents’ parking permit scheme Monday – Friday 8am – 6pm and a 2-hour limit without a permit.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier eight-person HMO was refused and appealed, while separate applications for the rear extension and dormer were approved.

“The Council refused consent on the 23 rd of December 2025 for the erection of single storey rear extension and roof extension to facilitate change of use from dwelling (Class C3) to large house in multiple occupation for 8 persons (HMO sui generis – our ref: 25/01191/FUL). The reasons for refusal were due to the impact on residential amenity as a result of increased comings and goings of 8 people, impact on parking amenity and lack of Solent Bird Aware SDMP agreement.”

“Since the refusal in late 2025, the subsequent applications 26/00014/FUL for a single storey rear extension and 26/00053/PLDC for roof alterations and rear dormer have been separately submitted and approved. The dormer windows have been completed.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended conditional approval because the proposal met the HMO threshold and was considered acceptable for character, residential amenity and parking.

“Principle of Development 6.2.1 The principle of additional housing is supported. The Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) SPD outlines a threshold test which investigates how many of the residential properties within a 40m radius, measured from the front door of the application site, are currently operating as an HMO. The proposed HMO use would not cause this threshold to be breached. There are currently no HMOs within the required 40m search area.”

“Section 4.3 of the HMO SPD explains that development that results in the sandwiching of existing family dwellings between 2 HMOs either side will not be permitted, given the potential impact on the amenity of the existing family dwelling. In this instance, the proposal would not result in sandwiching of a neighbouring residential dwelling with HMOs to either side and therefore complies with this element of policy.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

Officers considered the HMO’s principle, appearance, effect on neighbours and parking, concluding that six occupants would not cause significant harm.

“The key issues for consideration in the determination of this planning application are: - The principle of development…”

“- Design and effect on character - Residential amenity - Parking highways and transport…”

Officer report

Who addressed the Panel

Councillor Blackman attended and addressed the meeting with the Chair’s consent.

How members voted

The Panel’s approval recommendation was carried, with four councillors voting for, none against and two abstaining.

“The Panel then considered recommendation that the application be conditionally approved subject to criteria listed in the report. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was carried.”

“FOR: Councillors Blatchford, Cox, G Lambert, Windle AGAINST: None ABSTAINED: Councillors Harwood and Wood…”

Minutes

The final decision

The Panel approved planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the officer report.

“RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions set out within the report.”

Minutes

Key conditions

Conditions limited occupation to six people, required communal spaces and the extension, and required cycle and refuse storage.

“Cycle storage facilities (Pre-Occupation) Before the development hereby approved first comes into occupation/use, secure and covered storage for 6 bicycles shall be provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved. The storage shall be thereafter retained as approved for the lifetime of the development.”

“Refuse & Recycling (Pre-Occupation) Before the development hereby approved first comes into occupation/use, details of storage for refuse and recycling, together with the access to it, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The storage shall be provided in accordance with the agreed details before the development is first occupied and thereafter retained as approved.”

Officer report