Eight-person HMO at 65A Richmond Wood Road, Bournemouth

What was proposed

The application sought to change a dwellinghouse from Class C3 use into a sui generis HMO for eight people, with works carried out under permitted development rights.

“Description of Proposal 1. Planning permission is sought for the change of use from a dwellinghouse (C3) to Sui generis eight person HMO. The built development itself, including the dormers, would be completed under the existing Permitted Development (PD) rights, whilst the dwellinghouse remains under C3 use. Post construction, the planning permission would be enacted to trigger the conversion of the dwelling into a Sui generis eight person HMO.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The property is a semi-detached house on a residential street where detached and semi-detached homes typically have traditional roofscapes and finishes.

“Richmond Wood Road is a residential street within the Queens Park area of Bournemouth. Dwellinghouses are typically detached or semi-detached, with traditional roofscapes and building finishes. 65A features a brick and render material finish, hipped roof and two storey bay feature to the front elevation.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications concerned a six-metre single-storey rear extension, with one prior approval not required and an earlier prior notification refused.

“Relevant Planning History Date Description of Development Decision 27/08/2025 Single storey rear extension which would extend beyond the rear wall of the original semi-detached dwelling house by 6.00 metres, for which the maximum height would be 3.00 metres and for which the height at the eaves would be 3.00 metres.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered the intensification, amenity, highways, waste and other impacts acceptable, subject to mitigation and conditions.

“Neighbouring Residential Amenity 16. The dwellinghouse is a semi-detached property adjoined to 65B to the east. To the west and detached is number 63. The works to the property are not being considered as part of this application due to their completion under permitted development. Therefore, the impacts of the dormers on neighbouring amenity cannot be considered. However, if they were considered, there would not be a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity 17.”

“Parking Provision & Highways 25. As part of the application process, the Highways Officer was consulted. The application provides no additional parking and includes the provision of a cycle store in the rear garden. The dwellinghouse is within Parking Zone D. Sui Generis HMOs are required to have 1 parking space regardless of Parking Zone, according to the Parking Standards SPD (2021). 26.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The waste officer raised no objection, while the highways officer accepted the proposal despite no car parking, subject to a cycle-facility condition.

“Consultations 22/09/2025 | Strategic Waste Officer | No Objection: “The plans are suitable from a Waste Collection Authority perspective.”

“12/11/2025 | Highways Officer | No Objection, subject to condition: “Despite the lack of car parking, on balance this proposal for a change of use to an eight-bed HMO is seen as acceptable by the LHA and no objections are raised on highway grounds, subject to the imposition of a condition”.”

Officer report

Public objections

Fifty public representations opposed the proposal, raising concerns about parking, noise, character, waste, amenity, management, overcrowding and HMO concentration.

“Site notices were displayed on the 9 th October 2025 and a site visit was conducted on the 6 th November 2025. 50 representations were received from the public, all in objection. The key issues raised are summarised in the table below.”

“Issue Summary Parking & Highway Safety The proposal would add more vehicles to an already busy street for parking, with no off-street parking provision provided. Noise & Disturbance There would be an increase in noise from additional residential activity. This includes from increased departures and arrivals to the dwelling and the limited communal space pushing socialising to outdoor spaces.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors spoke, both named ward councillors objected, and no applicant or supporter was registered to speak.

Committee debate

A motion to defer the application was seconded but failed after the Chair used a casting vote against it.

“Note: During the debate a move to defer the application was seconded but not carried, the Chair using his casting vote against the move: Voting: For – 4, Against – 5, Abstain – 0”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused permission contrary to the officer recommendation, citing the area’s character, future occupants’ amenity, neighbours, parking and cycle facilities.

“RESOLVED to REFUSE permission contrary to the recommendation set out in the officer’s report for the following summary reasons with delegated authority to the Head of Planning Operations to agree the final detailed wording of the reasons for refusal:”

“Out of character with prevailing character of the area • Poor standard of residential amenity for future occupiers • Impact on neighbouring residential amenity due to proximity of property • Lack of car parking • Inadequate width of alleyway for cycle facilities…”

Minutes