Four-bedroom family home at 61-63 Eastney Road, Southsea

What is proposed

Two one-bedroom flats would become one four-bedroom dwelling, with alterations including removal of the front porch and rear steel staircase.

“CONVERSION OF 2NO. ONE-BEDROOM FLATS INTO 1NO, FOUR-BEDROOM DWELLING WITH ASSOCIATED ALTERATIONS AND REMOVAL OF FRONT PORCH AND STEEL STAIRCASE TO THE REAR ELEVATION”

“The proposal is for the proposal is for the conversion of the existing 2 one-bedroom flats into 1 four-bedroom dwelling with associated alterations and removal of the front porch and steel staircase to the rear elevation.”

Officer report

Planning history

There is no formal planning history, although a pre-application was carried out the previous year.

“No formal Planning History, though a pre-application was carried out last year.”

Officer report

Officers’ assessment

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because it restored the original layout and provided acceptable design, amenity, accommodation, parking and waste arrangements.

“This development would result in a loss of residential units and therefore would fail to make a contribution towards the City's housing needs. While this is noted, in this instance, the proposal would restore the property's original floorplan and is required by PCC's Housing in order to meet its available social housing needs. It is therefore considered that given the very minor loss of units at the site, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this instance.”

“The scheme does not include any on-or off-street parking provision and would have a proposed parking standard of 2 spaces under the Parking SPD. This is unchanged from the existing standard at the site of 2 one-bedroom flats (2 spaces). Therefore, it is not considered that the proposal would have any impact on the expected parking demand within the area.”

Officer report

Consultation and representations

Highways made no comments, Environmental Health had no objection, and no representations were received.

“Letters to adjoining properties were sent on 26.11.25. Site Notices were erected outside the site and on adjoining roads on 28.11.25.”

“No representations have been received in respect of the proposals.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the report and the applicant’s representative made a deputation.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the proposal a positive solution that would bring the property back into use as a beneficial family home.

“Members' Questions In response to questions, the following information was clarified: • It is not usual practice to include floor plans for non-HMO properties in the agenda papers as they are not to scale, it is better to view these online. Members felt that floor plans for all applications should be included but marked as not to scale. • The property is within the MH residents parking zone.”

“Members' Comments Members considered the application to be a positive and appropriate solution for a property in need of renovation. They felt that bringing it back into use as a family home would be highly beneficial, given the existing demand for such housing.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted delegated authority for conditional permission, subject to a legal agreement securing mitigation for recreational disturbance to Solent Special Protection Areas.

“RESOLVED that (1) That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning & Economic Growth to Grant Condition Permission subject to satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure: (a) The mitigation of the impact of the proposed residential development of Solent Special Protection Areas (recreational disturbance) by securing the payment of a financial contribution and relevant conditions (if required) (2) That delegated authority be granted to the…”

Minutes