Portsmouth approves four HMOs amid fears councillors will lose say

Four of five HMOs have been approved in Portsmouth, amid mounting concerns that planning committees are about to lose decision-making powers over them.

Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) remain divisive in the city council chamber. Critics point to the strain shared housing places on parking, services and local infrastructure, while supporters say they provide an affordable option amid the housing and cost of living crisis.

In planning committees, councillors must base any refusal on planning policy or legislation, otherwise decisions risk being overturned on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, at the cost of the council.

Reforms proposed by the Labour government loomed over the meeting. Due to be introduced in October, the changes would remove councillors’ ability to determine minor planning applications, including HMOs.

135 Kirby Road, Copnor

The most contested scheme was a bid by Applecore PDM to convert 135 Kirby Road into a seven-bedroom shared house, with two ground-floor bedrooms and a communal living area, plus three bedrooms upstairs. All residents would share bathrooms.

It attracted 61 objections from residents and councillors over parking, pressure on infrastructure and the character of the area.

The application was also dogged by controversy over an earlier extension, which gained approval after the council missed its 56-day decision deadline. It later emerged that the work fell under permitted development rights and required no planning permission. A council planner apologised for the “procedural error”.

Residents Tracey and Pete Houghton told the committee the HMO would add to parking and sewage pressures and contribute to the loss of family homes in the area. Pete Houghton said neighbours of 40 years were selling up because of HMOs and that the scheme’s size would harm his privacy and the character of the community.

Cllr Raymond Dent raised concerns about the lack of scrutiny over the existing extension and about planning reforms that will soon see HMO applications decided by officers rather than committee.

Planning officer David Hodges said committees were not being “abolished”, and that only minor applications would be delegated, alongside changes to what could be referred to committee.

He said the original extension, of up to 6m, had been “applied in error”, and was actually 3m, which fell within permitted development rights.

Cllr Carl Inman argued the two extensions should not be considered separately and proposed refusal on the grounds the extension was “not being done correctly” and that “the council has let down the residents of Copnor”.

Cllr Lee Hunt said this gave no sound planning reason for refusal – later on Cllr Inman to “reluctantly” withdrew his motion.

Cllr Hugh Mason said he disliked the application but could find no legal or policy basis to refuse it.

Cllr Mary Vallely agreed, warning of the costs the council would face if a refusal were appealed. Cllr Hunt added that the Houghtons should not be given false hope, as any refusal would likely be overturned on appeal regardless.

The vote was tied at 4-4, with the chair using her casting vote to approve the application.

39 Winchcombe Road, Paulsgrove

The most ambitious proposal was for 39 Winchcombe Road, where James Porter, acting for Dave Lincoln, wants to demolish a rear extension, build a new one and add a rear dormer to create an eight-bedroom shared house.

Every room would have an en suite bathroom, and the plans include dedicated bin and cycle storage and a dropped kerb.

Representations from 11 addresses were received, all objecting to the scheme over parking, drainage and overdevelopment concerns.

Cllr Joe Standen raised fears over the split-level living area, arguing that the stairs reduced the usable space and therefore fell below the council’s space standards.

A motion to refuse was made on that basis and garnered support among members. Cllr Mason said Cllr Standen’s insight “underlines the value of having a committee”.

The application was refused unanimously.

50 Belgravia Road, Copnor

At 50 Belgravia Road, Conner Mallen Thorns Young, acting for Mr McKenzie of Glebe Park Projects Ltd, wants to merge two existing flats into one property, to be used either as a family home or a shared house for up to six people.

The combined property would have six bedrooms across two floors, with shared bathrooms and a communal living area.

Eleven representations were received, all objecting to the scheme.

Despite concerns over lighting and overdevelopment, councillors voted four in favour, three against and with one abstention.

36 Montgomerie Road, St Thomas

In Southsea, Applecore PDM has applied on behalf of Mr J Oliver to expand 36 Montgomerie Road from a six-person shared house into a seven-person one and to retain a rear dormer window that has already been built.

If approved, every bedroom would have its own en suite bathroom across three floors.

Six representations were received, all objecting to the scheme due to the excessive concentration of HMOs and pressure on parking, services and infrastructure.

The application was approved, however members noted there was little to vote against, as the works were either immaterial or carried out under permitted development rights.

It was approved with three votes in favour and five abstentions.

16 Tottenham Road, Charles Dickens

Finally, Applecore PDM has applied on behalf of Rowelane Homes Ltd to increase the number of residents at 16 Tottenham Road, near the city centre, from six to seven – the point at which planning permission is required.

The application states that “the change in occupancy will involve the repurposing of internal rooms but no external operational development forms part of this application.”

Seven objections were received.

Members raised concerns over the number of bathrooms, with residents required to go to the ground floor to access the shower room.

Cllr Standen also raised concerns over out-of-date floor plans, which he argued did not allow members to make a fully informed decision.

The application was approved after the chair used her casting vote following a 4-4 tie.

More information can be found in the council’s planning committee agenda.