Seven-person HMO at 82 Drayton Road, Portsmouth

What was proposed

The application sought to change a dwelling into a seven-bedroom, seven-person house in multiple occupation, with shared facilities and cycle storage.

“The proposal is for the change of use of the property from a dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a 7 Bedroom - 7 Person House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis).”

“Ground Floor - two bedrooms (single occupancy) with en-suites; communal combined amenity area; shared utility room with WC, handbasin • First Floor - Three bedrooms (single occupancy) with en-suites; shared bathroom with bath and WC, hand basin; shared shower room with WC, handbasin • Second floor - Two bedrooms (single occupancy) with en-suites…”

Officer report

The site

The site is a mid-terrace, two-storey property near shops, services, employment, leisure facilities and frequent local buses.

“The application site is a mid-terrace, 2-storey property on the eastern side of Drayton Road (in Nelson Ward).”

“The site is approximately 210m from the London Road Local Centre, where there are a range of shops, leisure, employment and services, and frequent local buses. It is approximately 1.5 miles from Fratton Train Station and does not fall within a Parking Permit Zone.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because it met relevant HMO, accommodation, amenity, parking and accessibility requirements.

“The Parking SPD states that whilst there is an expectation that the parking standards will be met in residential development, the Council recognises that, given the nature of available development sites in the city, it will not always be physically possible to accommodate the expected standard on site and in some cases, it may not be possible or appropriate to provide any on-site parking at all.”

“Drawing these factors together, it is considered that as the site meets the Parking SPD's definition of a 'high accessibility' site, the scheme complies with the guidance in the Parking SPD when taken as a whole. Neither the Highways Officer nor Planning Officer raises an objection. It should be noted that the property could be occupied by a large family with adult children, each potentially owning a separate vehicle.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways and Private Sector Housing raised no objections, while requesting cycle storage and noting licensing and fire-safety matters.

“No objection. Note sites close proximity to public transport links and local amenities. Note the size of the proposed development is unlikely to result in a material impact on the highway network, but also mention the potential for increased parking pressure. However, this is highlighted as being a matter of residential amenity rather than highways functionality or safety. Request a condition to secure cycle storage prior to occupation.”

“No objection. Query room widths (all rooms are confirmed by Planning Officer as being at least 2.15m in width) and note that fire safety measures for Room 2 must be reviewed prior to License being granted, but no adverse comments to be made. The property would likely require a licence under Part 2, Housing Act 2004.”

Officer report

Objections received

Sixteen objections and a 66-signature petition raised concerns including parking, antisocial behaviour, noise, services, natural light, rear access and neighbouring amenity.

“Number of HMOs within the block and local area • Impact on parking • Anti-social behaviour • Increase in noise disturbance • Impact of local services, including sewage and utilities • Concerns over the internal layout for the proposed occupiers (including natural light) • Loss of family dwelling- Officer comment - This is not part of adopted local policy. • Safety concerns over rear access • Impact of operational development on neighbouring amenity.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard a supporting deputation from Tom Vail and opposition from Councillor Richard Adair.

Members’ discussion

Members praised the layout and separate utility room but noted that the application did not meet every required standard.

“Members' Questions. In response to questions, the following information was clarified by the Planning Officer: • There are two doors between the kitchen and the downstairs toilet. Building Regulations would deal with these sorts of details.”

“Members' Comments. During the discussion, members made the following comments: • This is one of the best laid out HMO that has come to committee for a long time. • Members were pleased that the plans had a separate utility room and rear access to the cycle storage so that bicycles do not have to be wheeled through the property. • However, it was noted that contrary to what was said in one of the deputations, this application does not meet all the required standards.”

Minutes

The vote

Members resolved to grant conditional permission in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED that conditional permission be granted as per the officer's recommendation.”

Minutes

Permission conditions

The permission included conditions covering the time limit, approved plans, cycle storage, extensions, water efficiency and waste storage.

“Approved Plans Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the permission hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: PG.1142.25.2 Rev A (Proposed Plans, Elevations and Sections), 1.500 BLOCK PLAN, LOCATION PLAN”

“Water Efficiency The proposal hereby permitted shall not (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA) be occupied until written documentary evidence has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that the development has achieved a maximum water use of 110 litres per person per day as defined in paragraph 36(2)b of the Building Regulations (2010) (as amended).”

Officer report