Three out of five shared house applications were approved by Portsmouth planners

Three out of five applications for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) have been approved by Portsmouth planners.

Portsmouth City Council’s planning committee considered five HMO applications, a topic that often sparks debate in the council chamber.

Critics of HMOs argue that the growing number of applications is changing local communities, increasing pressure on parking and local infrastructure, and reducing the number of family homes available.

Supporters argue that HMOs provide an affordable housing option for people who cannot afford to rent a home on their own or buy a property, especially young people.

47 Birdlip Road, Paulsgrove

The first application was for 47 Birdlip Road, seeking permission to change the property into a seven-person HMO.

The planning officer highlighted an inconsistency between the submitted architectural drawings and those approved under previous permissions, raising concerns that the scheme had been “misleadingly advertised”.

Officers recommended that the committee withdraw the application so the issues could be addressed.

Councillor Joe Standen noted that the property is listed on the council’s licensed HMO register as a four-bedroom HMO. The planning officer replied that this “wouldn’t be lawful” because planning permission for HMO use had not been granted.

The committee withdrew the application. Cllr Hugh Mason said the HMO register, which is managed by the licensing department, does not communicate with the planning department “as much as they should”.

252 Havant Road, Drayton and Farlington

The committee then approved an application for 252 Havant Road to partly redevelop the ground and upper floors to create a seven-bedroom HMO while retaining a commercial unit on the ground floor.

The proposal follows an application for a nine-bedroom, nine-person HMO on the same site, which is currently under appeal. That application was refused by the planning committee on 2 October 2025, against officers’ recommendation.

Cllr Lee Hunt said: “This is two rooms less, so there’s less activity.

“So often I see the committee cut of its nose to spite its face, this is a much improved situation than last time. This will happen one way or another, whether it’s nine or seven bedrooms. I think we should do everything we can do to encourage them to come to seven.”

50 Chetwynd Road, Southsea

An application at 50 Chetwyn Road to increase an existing HMO from four bedrooms to eight was refused.

The property already exceeded the council’s threshold policy, which states that no more than 10 per cent of homes within a 50-metre radius of an HMO can be HMOs.

Officers said just over 25 per cent of nearby properties were already HMOs and that this figure would not change if the application was approved.

The proposal followed an earlier application for an eight-person HMO, which was refused because of poor outlook from the communal area and limited outdoor space. An appeal against that decision was dismissed on 29 June.

In a deputation, Councillor Suzy Horton said “whilst this meets the space standards, it’s another examples of cram them in development” and that the current use as a HMO “is enough”.

Cllr Carl Inman claimed that the 25 per cent concentration represented 58 bedrooms across 13 properties, adding “if that’s not an over intensification of the area I’m not sure what would be”.

The application was refused because of over intensification and insufficient outdoor space.

3 Lawson Road, Southsea

The committee also granted unconditional approval for an application at 3 Lawson Road to increase a six-bedroom HMO to seven bedrooms.

The property was already 14 percentage points above the council’s HMO threshold. However, officers said the increase was not a material change, meaning planning permission was not required.

Cllr Matthew Cordy disagreed, arguing that changing the property from Class C4 to sui generis use amounted to a material change.

Cllr Denise Perry raised concerns that refusing an application over one extra tenant could leave the council facing an appeal and potentially having costs awarded against it if it lost.

Officers said they had “significant concerns” because planning permission was not required and warned that refusing the application would be “well beyond our remit”.

Cllr Joe Standen asked why the application was being considered by the committee if planning permission was not needed.

Officers described it as a “deeply unsatisfactory process”, explaining that agents sometimes deliberately submit planning applications when they are unnecessary because it is quicker to appeal a planning refusal than a refusal of a certificate of lawful development, which is normally required for works of this scale.

38 Margate Road, Somerstown

Finally, the committee also granted unconditional approval for 38 Margate Road, a similar application to increase another six-bedroom HMO by two bedrooms.

Cllr Inman said the property was not listed on the council’s licensed HMO register, with Cllr Joe Standen claiming “we’re making decisions based on inaccurate information”.

Officers said they “can’t account for whether licensing should or shouldn’t include it on the register” and later clarified that the property was licensed, despite not appearing on the register.

Committee chair Cllr Hugh Mason said members had to make their decision based on the “best information we have available” and agreed that the increase was not a material consideration in planning law.

More information can be found on the committee’s agenda here.