Six-person HMO at 23 Upper Brownhill Road, Southampton

What was proposed

The application sought to convert a four-bedroom dwelling into a six-bedroom HMO, including a sixth bedroom in the existing rear outbuilding.

“The current property is a spacious, four bedroom property featuring a separate lounge area, a large open plan living area with that includes a dining space, breakfast bar and kitchen. It is proposed to convert the separate lounge to a bedroom on the ground floor. The proposed HMO has 5 bedrooms in the main house and no more than 6 residents would reside on site with the additional conversion of the outbuilding to an additional bedroom.”

“It is proposed to convert the existing games room within the rear outbuilding to a sixth bedroom with a separate bathroom. A gym room in the rear of the outbuilding is to be retained.”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

Earlier permissions covered side and rear extensions, an outbuilding, and a lawful loft conversion with a rear dormer.

“Case Ref Proposal Decision Date 21/00061/FUL Proposed double storey side extension and part-double storey rear extension and erection of an outbuilding at the rear. Conditionall y Approved 01.03.2021 21/00498/PLD C Application for lawful development certificate for conversion of loft and installation of rear dormer Grant LDC 21.05.2021”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended conditional approval because the proposal met the HMO threshold and was considered acceptable for character, living conditions, neighbours and transport.

“The bedroom sizes range between 11.2sq.m and 17.5sq.m and are, therefore, considered to provide a good standard of amenity. The layout provides a single bathroom and an additional W/C, with bedrooms 2, 5 and 6 being served by ensuites. There is a combined kitchen/living/dining space of 53sq.m which notably exceeds the Council’s guideline of 15sq.m for a six person HMO.”

“The City needs a good mix of housing types. The proposal for a small HMO (use class C4) does not breach the Council’s adopted 10% threshold for HMOs within 40 metres of the site, and is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the character of the area or amenity of neighbouring properties.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Residents objected to intensification, parking, noise, waste, family housing, privacy, safety, consultation and the possible effect on children’s wellbeing.

“The surrounding area is predominantly family homes. The proposal would replace a single dwelling with a high-intensity HMO, leading to increased noise, waste, transient residents, and erosion of the stable family character of the neighbourhood. It may also set an unwelcome precedent for future HMO or garden-dwelling developments.”

“The road is already dangerous and heavily congested, with limited parking, frequent accidents, and restricted visibility. A 6-bed HMO (potentially 12 residents) would worsen parking stress, increase traffic hazards, and reduce safe access for residents, children, and emergency vehicles.”

Officer report

Other concerns raised

The HMO licensing response raised questions about room sizes, facilities, ventilation, bins, parking and kitchen provision in the outbuilding.

“Consultee Comments HMO Licensing In brief, the outbuilding will, I suspect, need cooking facilities &, therefore, a mains-wired heat & smoke detector in the kitchen/bedroom - This would, in effect, render the outbuilding self-contained - Consequently, it's inappropriate to permit access to a communal gym & this space could be converted into the kitchen.”

“My principal concern is the lack of any kitchen facilities - The requirement for the occupier/s to have to exit the outbuilding, regardless of weather conditions, in order to reach kitchen facilities, is not acceptable - The outbuilding should be provided with appropriate kitchen facilities - I would refer the applicant to the attached 'Guidance on Standards for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO's)' for additional information - A potential option might be to convert the gym…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident, the agent and a ward councillor addressed the meeting, while written statements from residents were also considered.

What members debated

Members focused on the amended outbuilding and occupancy conditions and concerns about the neighbouring foster home and vulnerable children.

“After questions relating to the conversion of the outbuilding to bedroom 6, Cllr Wood proposed an amendment to Condition 3 and 7, to reduce the HMO to 5 persons, and to remove the bedroom from the outbuilding. Members voted unanimously in support of this change to the conditions.”

“During Members’ statements, Councillors Vaughan-Powell, Harwood, and Blatchford raised concerns regarding the impact of the HMO on the occupiers of the foster home, and the vulnerable children within their placement, and advised that they will not be supporting the application.”

Minutes

The final decision

The amended approval recommendation was lost, and planning permission was refused unanimously under delegated authority for reasons concerning intensity, disturbance, safeguarding and community integration.

“The Panel then considered recommendation that the application be conditionally approved subject to criteria listed in the report as amended. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation as amended was lost.”

“RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out below:”

Minutes