Eight-person HMO at 39 Winchcombe Road, Portsmouth

What was proposed

The application sought to replace a rear extension, add a rear extension and dormer, and create an eight-bedroom, eight-person HMO.

“DEMOLITION OF REAR SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION, CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, REAR FACING DORMER TO FORM EIGHT BEDROOM/EIGHT PERSON SUI GENERIS HOUSE OF MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (HMO) WITH ASSOCIATED BIN AND BIKE STORAGE AND DROPPED KERB”

“25/01441/FUL | Demolition of rear single storey extension, construction of single storey rear extension, rear facing dormer to form eight bedroom/eight person sui generis house of multiple occupation (HMO) with associated bin and bike storage and dropped kerb | 39 Winchcombe Road Portsmouth PO6 4BA”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is an end-of-terrace, two-storey four-bedroom dwelling on a residential road near shops, services, employment, leisure facilities and buses.

“The application site is 39 Winchcombe Road, Portsmouth, a two-storey, four- bedroomed dwellinghouse. Winchcombe Road is a residential road in Paulsgrove ward near to Portsdown Hill. The character of the surroundings is predominantly mid 20th century terraced and semi detached dwellings, the property is end-of- terrace. The front garden drops down in level from street to house, and again to…”

“The site is approximately 150m from Allaway Avenue Local Centre, where there are a range of shops, leisure, employment and services, and local buses.”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier nine-bedroom HMO proposal was refused because of accommodation, Solent mitigation and neighbouring amenity concerns.

“App No 25/01037/FUL Decision - Refused Date 2/12/2025 Application for change of use from C3 dwelling to nine bedroom/nine person and extensions. Refused under Delegated Powers on: 1. inadequate size of communal area and ensuite bathrooms; 2. No mitigation for the Special Protection Areas, and; 3. the harmful impact of the significant rear ground floor extension to no.37 next door, contrary to Policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Local Plan (2012).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the amended proposal acceptable and recommended conditional permission, subject to an agreement securing mitigation for Solent impacts.

“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:”

“(a) the mitigation of the impact of the proposed residential development on Solent Special Protection Areas (recreational disturbance and nitrates) by securing the payment of a financial contribution and relevant conditions (below);”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The Highways Team and Private Sector Housing raised no objections, while housing officers considered the living space suitable for the proposed occupants.

“No objection. There is suitable living space for the proposed number of occupants. The property would likely require a licence under Part 2, Housing Act 2004.”

Officer report

Objections from residents

Objections from eleven addresses covered parking, noise, drainage, overdevelopment, privacy, waste, construction impacts and possible policy conflict.

“Parking concerns, road already saturated, narrow carriageway unsafe, emergency and refuse vehicles may not be able to access, disabled bay outside No.39 makes dropped‑kerb plan unworkable, overspill into Severn Close and Tarleton Rd.”

“Damage to neighbouring properties/construction impacts: if it occurs, this is a private, civil matter; • Profits made by companies converting properties to HMOs • Loss of family dwelling - Officer comment - This is not part of adopted local policy. • Location of foul drainage or a potential re route is not a planning consideration…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Head of Development Management introduced the report, and the applicant made a deputation to the committee.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned whether the staircase reduced communal space below the required standard and raised concerns about living conditions and a disabled parking bay.

“The area taken up by the internal staircase slightly reduced communal space, but officers advised that this would not automatically render the scheme unacceptable. The area of the staircase on the ground floor is 1.54m2.”

“Members' Comments Members expressed concern that the reduction in usable communal space could result in non-compliance with minimum standards once circulation areas were accounted for. Concerns were also raised about the adequacy of living conditions, including room sizes and layout constraints.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because communal living space and bedroom sizes were considered inadequate and Solent mitigation was not secured.

“1) The development provides substandard communal living space for occupiers, as by including the staircase area as being within the communal living area, there would be less than 34sqm as required by the Houses in Multiple Occupation SPD (2019). This would also result in the bedrooms being inadequately sized, as in the instance of the communal living area being less than 34sqm, they would need to be at least 10sqm each.”

“2) In the absence of a suitable agreement to secure appropriate mitigation measures; in terms of recreational pressure on birds, and for the increased discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous into the Solent, the development would be likely to have a significant effect on the Solent Special Protection Areas and is therefore contrary to the NPPF, Policy PCS13 of the Portsmouth Plan, PLP 44 and PLP43 of the Emerging Local Plan (2024-2045) and to the Conservation of Habitats and…”

Minutes