Nine-person HMO at 252 Havant Road, Portsmouth

What was proposed

The application sought a nine-bedroom, nine-person HMO, with a mansard roof, rear extension, bicycle storage and refuse storage.

“The proposal is for the change of use of part ground floor (Class E) and upper floor (Class C3) to 9 bedroom/ 9 person House of Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis); external alterations to include construction of mansard roof, single storey rear extension and associated bicycle and refuse storage. The proposals were amended during the course of the application, reducing the scale of development and removing one bedroom within the rear mansard.”

“Construction of mansard roof; and • single storey rear extension.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey semi-detached commercial building with a ground-floor funeral-care business, an upstairs flat and one rear parking space.

“The application site comprises a two-storey semi-detached commercial building located on the southern side of Havant Road. The site is occupied by 'Co Op Funeral Care' Use Class E at ground floor with a residential flat at first floor level. The property is the western of a pair of commercial properties, and features a gabled-roof frontage, with first floor bay window. The ground floor frontage is a standard shopfront, with a fascia board advert. At…”

“The surrounding area has a mixed character with varied building and roof forms. The immediate area is predominantly two-storey, with notable exceptions to the east, is a three- storey commercial flat roof building and to the north is a four-storey residential building 'Langstone Court'. Further to the west are other examples of three and four storey buildings. To the south is Aldsworth Close a two-storey residential terrace, which backs onto the rear of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered a replacement shopfront and a rear extension providing a service entrance, ramp, lift access and condenser units.

“23/00700/FUL - Installation of replacement shopfront Decision - Conditional Permission 26/07/2023”

“23/00394/FUL - Construction of rear extension to form service entrance with mezzanine landing, staircase and ramp to lift unit (to replace existing external platform); installation of condenser units to side elevation Decision - Conditional Permission 15/05/2023”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended conditional permission because housing, commercial retention, accommodation standards, design, waste storage and protected-area mitigation were considered acceptable.

“The principle of development is accepted as the proposal would contribute additional residential accommodation and retain commercial use in a local centre which would support the objectives of the development plan. In addition, the standard of accommodation is good in respect to room sizes, the appearance of the proposed physical alterations, and waste storage provision, would be considered acceptable in design terms.”

“RECOMMENDATION I - That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to Grant Conditional Permission subject to satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure:”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways and housing officers raised no objection, while environmental health requested noise insulation for traffic and commercial noise.

“No objection. This part of Havant Road is formed by a variety of uses both commercial and residential with bus stops and local amenities in close proximity. A letter of representation highlights potential issues regarding access rights to the single parking space to the rear; however, this is a private rights matter which to my understanding is a non-material planning consideration.”

“The property is located in an area with a high daily volume of traffic, and no information has been provided as to whether future tenants will be protected against traffic noise and any noise emanating from the retained commercial unit. Two conditions for noise insultation have therefore been requested.”

Officer report

What people objected to

All 27 representations opposed the scheme, citing parking, overdevelopment, noise, privacy, commercial-space loss, design, accommodation and community-balance concerns.

“Existing HMOs in the area (specific mention of No.187 Havant Road); • Number of licensed (alcohol) premises within the area; • Over development of the site; • Impact on parking (wider area and the parking facilities at the rear of the neighbouring property); • Excessive population density; • Impact on local services and infrastructure; • Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties; • Loss of the shop and impact on Policy PCS18; • Increase in noise; • The mansard is not in…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from an objector, the agent and Councillor Spencer Gardner speaking in opposition.

Members’ debate

Members questioned ground-floor policy compliance, overdevelopment, neighbour effects and parking, while recognising the location, transport links and need for good HMOs.

“Members' Questions In response to questions, the following information was clarified by the Development Management Lead: • He is not sure where more planting could be accommodated, in addition to the retained hedge. There is not much space for any meaningful landscaping. • The committee could impose a condition regarding drainage to seek betterment on this very small site to reduce local runoff in the event of heavy rain.”

“However, they also noted that: • Having HMOs in commercial areas, can increase footfall at the pubs, shops and restaurants. • There is a need for decent, good size HMOs in good locations. Sometimes people find it more difficult to have HMOs in residential areas. • It is very good for public transport links. • It would be very convenient for staff working at QA hospital.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because of ground-floor policy conflict, overdevelopment, neighbour impacts, parking loss, the mansard’s scale and Special Protection Area effects.

“RESOLVED that the application be refused.”

“REASONS • Non-compliance with Policy PCS18 which restricts residential use on the ground floor within designated local centres. • Overdevelopment and Neighbouring Amenity Impact. The scale and intensity of the development is considered excessive and likely result in unacceptable noise and disturbance, adversely affecting the amenity of neighbouring residents.”

Minutes