12-person HMO conversion at Auckland House, Southsea

The site and its history

The vacant, disused terraced property had previously been a care home; an earlier mixed flat and HMO proposal was refused.

“The application site was originally a terraced house, latterly used as a care home. The property presents two storeys plus dormer roof space to the street, with a three-storey rear wing. The building also has a basement. The building is currently vacant and in a state of disrepair. The area is characterised by predominantly residential uses, including three care homes in the immediate vicinity.”

“REFUSED Change of use from Care home (Class C2) to 1no. two-bedroom flat at basement level (Class C3), and 12-bed/12-person house in multiple occupation at upper levels. External alterations to include excavation at front and rear to allow access to basement, with associated retaining wall and steps; removal of rear chimney; alterations to fenestration; and division of garden space with associated bicycle storage. REASONS FOR REFUSAL can be summarised as follows: 1.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Thirty-five representations objected, citing parking, anti-social behaviour, loss of care provision, overcrowding, privacy, waste, cycle storage and environmental concerns.

“Parking pressures and impact on traffic including consideration for primary school and vulnerable residents in the area, • Potential increase in anti-social behaviour and crime, • Loss of care facilities providing essential services to the elderly and vulnerable individuals, more pressure on GPs, • Community balance and cohesion due to HMO concentration - already 7 licenced HMOs in this street, • The scale of the proposed HMO should be given more weight given the proposed…”

“Loss of privacy for direct neighbours during the construction period, noise, traffic, mess, • Property was sold as 8-bed, not 12-bed therefore for the purpose of nutrient neutrality its impact would be greater, • Wheelchair accessibility - no provision raising a question of discrimination, • Impact on the rear alley during the construction and increased foot traffic once occupied - physical damage should be restored and security maintained, • Removal of long-established…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke to the committee, and officers answered members’ questions about bedrooms, basement space, trees, access and cycle storage.

What members debated

Members questioned parking, bedroom 12, shared space, overdevelopment, cycle storage, bin storage and possible future basement conversion.

“Members were unhappy with the liveable space in bedroom 12 and were not convinced by the availability of a gym in the basement to compensate for the size of the room, which they thought would not be used due to potential damp issues. There were concerns about the quality of the shared space for the residents.”

“They considered the cycle storage provision was not adequate for 12 people and there were concerns about the placement of the bin storage which may affect the amenity of the basement room due to bad smells emanating from them. There were concerns that the basement room could be a stealth room for later conversion to a bedroom.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission contrary to the officer recommendation, citing parking and amenity, overdevelopment, poor outlook and living space, and habitat mitigation.

“DECISION RESOLVED to refuse to grant planning permission contrary to office recommendation for the following reasons:”

“Poor outlook for occupiers of bed 12 and lack of liveable space for occupiers…”

Minutes