Only one HMO survives Portsmouth planning committee scrutiny

Only one HMO proposal survived scrutiny as councillors used the emerging Local Plan to challenge shared housing schemes.

Four applications about Houses in Multiple Occupation were considered by Portsmouth City Council’s planning committee. But only one found favour, as councillors increasingly rely on the city’s emerging Local Plan when making decisions.

HMOs remain one of the most divisive issues in the council chamber. Opponents argue that shared housing places additional pressure on parking, waste collection and local services, while supporters say they provide an affordable housing option during the housing and cost-of-living crisis.

Planning committee members must base any refusal on planning policy or legislation or risk decisions being overturned on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate, potentially leaving the council with costs.

The meeting also took place against the backdrop of proposed planning reforms by the Labour government. Due to come into force in October, the changes would remove councillors’ powers to determine minor planning applications, including HMOs.

46 New Road East

The only scheme that saw approval was a six-bedroom HMO at 46 New Road East.

The application attracted 29 objections and a petition containing 73 signatures, while Councillor Stuart Brown called for it to be considered by committee.

Addressing members, Cllr Brown said: “The strength of local feeling should not be overlooked.

He added that the proposal could impact neighbours, lead to overflowing bins and add to the parking pressures already facing the area.

Despite concerns raised by residents and ward members, councillors concluded there were no planning grounds to refuse the application.

Cllr Peter Candlish said he could not see a reason to refuse the application that was underpinned by planning law.

Cllr Gerald Vernon-Jackson agreed, saying he could not find a reason to refuse and “very reluctantly” proposed approval.

Members voted to grant planning permission by four votes in favour, with three abstentions.

92 Gladys Avenue

A decision on plans to convert 92 Gladys Avenue into a six bedroom HMO was postponed after councillors questioned how the council’s HMO concentration policy had been applied.

The application had received 11 objections and was called in by Councillor Russell Simpson, who cited concerns over overdevelopment, parking pressures, the sewage network, possible antisocial behaviour, pressure on local services and the changing character of the road.

Speaking at the meeting, Cllr Simpson argued the scheme should be refused because parking spaces had already “gone” due to bus stops, school lanes and double yellow lines.

Councillor Matthew Cordy raised concerns over the council’s threshold policy, which limits HMOs to no more than ten per cent of properties within a 50 metre radius.

He argued that one nearby property had not been included in the assessment and, if it had been counted, the proposal would breach the threshold.

Councillor Vernon-Jackson successfully proposed deferring the application until the next planning committee so officers could determine whether the property should be included in the calculation.

Six members voted to defer the application, with one abstention.

38 Manners Road

Councillors then unanimously refused plans to expand an existing five-bedroom HMO at 38 Manners Road into an eight-bedroom property.The application attracted 12 objections.

Applicant Alex Tomczynski told the committee the proposal would improve accommodation for student tenants rather than simply increase occupancy.

He said: “A well managed HMO can be a positive part of any neighbourhood while a poorly managed one can cause problems regardless whether it accommodates five people or eight.”

Councillor Suzy Horton stepped down as committee chair to speak against the proposal, arguing it conflicted with the council’s emerging Local Plan, which would only support such increases in exceptional circumstances where HMO concentrations already exceeded the threshold.

She said: “Whilst this does meet the space standards, it does feel like a ‘cram them in’.

She added it bothers her there “aren’t material planning reasons to make comment” on proposals that would make it difficult for the property to be converted back into a family home.

Planning officers advised that one possible exceptional circumstance was the council’s current shortfall in housing delivery, which could outweigh the emerging policy.

However, Councillor Vernon-Jackson questioned whether that would effectively undermine the Local Plan.

He said: “The whole point of the local plan is out the window and why are we bothering paying large quantities of money to planning officers to write the local plan.”

He proposed refusing the application by giving the emerging Local Plan significant weight.

Officers clarified that a housing delivery shortfall does not “always trump” policies supporting refusal.

Members unanimously backed the refusal.

279 Fawcett Road

The committee also unanimously refused an application for a Certificate of Lawful Development at 279 Fawcett Road.

The application centred on whether increasing occupancy from five to seven residents represented a material change of use.

Cllr Vernon-Jackson said: “If the policy has legs, then overintensification is something the new local plan says we can resist except in exceptional circumstances.”

Planning officers reminded members that the only issue they needed to determine was whether the increase was a material change of use, referring to failed appeal decisions

Councillor Cordy moved refusal, arguing the increase did represent a material change because of its potential impact on parking, local infrastructure, noise and waste management.

Members unanimously refused the application.