Three tall mixed-use buildings at 134-142 Commercial Road, Portsmouth

What was proposed

The application sought outline approval to demolish the former store and build three tall buildings with commercial space, community areas, apartments and co-living units.

“Approval is sought at this Outline stage for details of access and scale. Matters of the layout, appearance and landscaping of the proposal are reserved for later approval (the 'reserved matters') and are not being considered as part of this application. Nonetheless indicative details of intended external building materials, internal floor layouts, communal amenity space, and external landscaping have been provided.”

“A total of up to 366 residential build to rent apartments (Class C3) are intended to be provided within Buildings A and B (indicatively the proposed drawings show 183 x 1- bedroom; 181 x 2-bedroom; and 2 x 3-bedroom apartments) and 358 co-living units (Sui Generis) within Building C.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site included the empty former department store and closed car park in the city centre, close to shops, public transport, listed buildings and conservation areas.

“The application site sits within the heart of the City Centre with the surrounding area characterised by a mix of commercial, retail, and residential uses. Commercial Road, the city’s primary retail corridor, is home to a diverse array of shops complemented by a wide range of food and beverage outlets and essential services, making it a key destination for both shoppers and local residents.”

“The application site does not contain any listed buildings and is not located within a designated conservation area. However, it does lie in close proximity to the Guildhall and Victoria Park Conservation Area, with the nearest boundary with it approximately 165– 170 metres from the site.”

Officer report

Earlier proposals and history

The original scheme had four buildings and 569 apartments; after renegotiation, the proposal was amended to three buildings and underwent further consultation.

“The application, as originally submitted in August 2024, included a proposal for the demolition of the existing former Debenhams retail store (Class E) and redevelopment of the site to provide 4 replacement buildings of 5, 16, 24 and 38 storeys in height accommodating ground floor retail units (Class E(a) - 1,058sqm), commercial office space and gym (Class E(g)(i) - 3,600sqm) and community space (Class F2 - 300sqm) and 569 apartments (267 x 1-bedroom; 269 x 2-bedroom;…”

“Following a significant period of renegotiation to address concerns relating to the height, scale and potential building proximities of the original proposal, the amended scheme was submitted in November 2025 and a full re-consultation was subsequently undertaken as detailed in the 'Consultations' section of this report below.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended conditional outline permission because the scheme would provide housing, regeneration, economic activity and public realm improvements, outweighing less-than-substantial heritage harm.

“The principle of redevelopment is strongly supported by the adopted Portsmouth Plan (2012), which seeks to promote regeneration, housing delivery, and sustainable development in accessible city centre locations. This need is maintained in the policies of the emerging Portsmouth Local Plan, as outlined above. There is a pressing need for housing, and the Council has an extremely challenging housing delivery target.”

“With regard to the identified social, economic, environmental and sustainability value that the scheme would bring, with the addition of the benefits identified above, it is considered that the public benefits of the application scheme outweigh the 'less than substantial' harm identified. The proposal successfully balances the need for new homes on an underutilised, well-connected brownfield site against the site's setting and character.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Most consultees raised no objection, while concerns included heritage views, cycle parking, transport evidence, station capacity and contributions; one public response supported the proposal.

“Portsmouth Cycle Forum OBJECTION to the proposal. It's a great location for development and we are keen to see it come forward, however: • Currently the cycle parking proposed does not meet the SPD, it is half. We would expect it to at least meet the SPD, without any reliance on people taking their bikes into their own properties. • We would like clarity on whether the cycle parking is on the ground floor, or underground accessible by a lift - this is unclear.”

“PCC Conservation and Heritage NO OBJECTION to the proposal. Less than substantial harm has been identified to a number of heritage assets. The proposal is considered to have reached a point that is considered acceptable in design terms. PCC Contaminated Land Team NO OBJECTION subject to conditions relating to contamination and remediation as suggested being attached to any permission granted.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The chief planner introduced the application, and the agent gave a deputation supporting it.

What members discussed

Members discussed wind, servicing, pedestrian routes, play space, biodiversity, drainage, cycle storage, co-living flexibility, affordable housing, commercial space and station improvements.

“Sustainable urban drainage systems have been built into the proposal as a concept. Hardstandings would be permeable and allow attenuation. An advantage of tall buildings meant the footprint was smaller so trees and play spaces could be accommodated. • Officers were satisfied there was adequate provision for cycle storage. Layout and use of the ground floor space was a balance but they could impose an informative to inform the reserved matters.”

“A condition could not be imposed at this stage for something that may or may not happen years in the future. The primary purpose was to ensure conversion was conceptually available. There was scope for the units to be used for affordable housing as co-living was suitable for this type of housing. There was no affordable housing at the moment but there will be a financial viability review mechanism to consider the viability of the scheme as a whole.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted delegated authority for conditional outline permission, subject to a legal agreement, conditions, a viability review and cycle parking advice.

“RESOLVED that: 1. Delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to Grant Conditional Outline Planning Permission subject to satisfactory agreement of a s106 legal agreement to secure: • Solent Recreation Mitigation (Bird-Aware Solent) contribution (formula based on the BA Strategy, to be informed by Reserved Matters dwelling mix); • Nutrient Neutrality Mitigation (formula as per Nutrient Neutral Mitigation Strategy 2022 and informed…”

“Delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to refuse planning permission if an internal local authority approval mechanism (an equivalent legal agreement) has not been satisfactorily agreed within six months of the date of this resolution. 4.”

Minutes