St Michael’s Lodge site to be redeveloped into 18 homes despite objections

Plans submitted on behalf of Yeoman Property Development Limited will see the construction of 12 houses and 6 flats on a rectangular plot bordered by Silver Street, Gold Street, and Stone Street in St Thomas ward.

The development will include two one-bedroom and four two-bedroom flats for affordable rent, alongside four three-bedroom and eight four-bedroom houses for open market sale.

The buildings will be three storeys high, with some incorporating a fourth storey within pitched roof spaces. Landscaped gardens are planned, and mature trees on the site will be retained.

The application is a re-submission of a previously refused scheme, which was later dismissed at appeal by central government planners. However, the appeal was unsuccessful primarily due to a lack of agreed affordable housing.

The proposal was deferred by the planning committee in September last year to allow Portsmouth City Council’s housing department to consult residents on the potential loss of open space at the eastern end of Diamond Street and behind a block of flats on Flint Street.

This space, largely comprising grassed open land behind the Flint Street flats, is considered “particularly valuable” to local families with children.

Council officers acknowledged that losing the space could be a “detriment” to the scheme, but noted that the Planning Inspectorate had not raised it as an unacceptable impact, and said it would be unlikely to justify refusal of permission.

Speaking to the committee, objector Sadhia Amin, a Stone Street resident since 2000, said the development would have a “detrimental effect” on her family and neighbours due to the loss of light, privacy, and an “overbearing impact”.

She argued the proposal was “far too intense” for the site and said the planned four-storey buildings would “directly overlook” her flat, leaving them with “no privacy whatsoever”.

Councillor Hugh Mason acknowledged that while some may have hoped for a different scheme, “We have to deal with the scheme which is before us and I can see no sustainable objection to it. It meets our planning requirements, it meets the prescription of favour of development. It is not overbearing in any planning terms.”