Appeal 6001588

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Change of use of part ground floor and upper floor, from commercial (Class E) to 8-bed/8-person house in multiple occupation (Sui generis) to include retention of ground floor commercial unit (Class E), installation of new shopfront including residential and commercial access doors, construction of Mansard roof extension, rear terrace at ground floor level, and associated bicycle and refuse storage at [site address] , Drayton, Portsmouth [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00435/FUL subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against Portsmouth City Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The description in the banner heading above is taken from the planning application form. However, the Council’s decision notice refers to an “8 bed/8 person” house in multiple occupation (HMO) which the appellant also includes in the description of the development in its appeal statement. I have therefore used this wording in my formal decision in the first paragraph above.

Various plans were submitted with the appeal. I have determined the appeal on the basis of plan PG.1006·25·03 [name] ‘Site, Location Plan and [name]‘ and plan PG.1006·25·02 [name] ‘[name] and Elevations’ which are the plans identified on the Council’s decision notice.

An agreement under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 has been submitted with the appeal in order to address the impact of the development caused by recreational disturbance and nitrate production. The Council has confirmed that the completion of the agreement secures the appropriate levels of mitigation and that the fourth reason for refusal has been successfully addressed.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the proposed changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development makes suitable provision for car parking with regard to the effect on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby dwellings; • whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of the room identified as ‘bedroom 1’ with regard to access and layout; • whether the proposal is in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies for development within the [address] local centre; and • the effect of the development on the Chichester and Langston Harbours Special Protection Area (SPA), the [name] and the Solent and [name] referred to collectively as the [name]; and on the Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the [name].

The proposal includes one-off street parking space to the rear of the site with access from [address]. Cycle parking is also indicated adjacent to the proposed parking space.

The location of the site within the local centre means that future occupiers of the proposed HMO would have access by foot to a range of services and facilities along [address]. On my site visit I also saw bus stops within walking distance of the site. As a result, future occupiers of the development would not be dependent on the private car to access local services and facilities. The Council’s officer report notes that the site is in a sustainable location in close proximity to shops, services and public transport links. I have found no sound reason to come to a different conclusion.

Policy PCS17 of the Portsmouth Plan 2012 (PP) seeks to reduce the need to travel including, amongst other things, promoting walking and cycling. The ‘[name] and Transport Assessments’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2014 whilst not part of the development plan indicates the expected parking standard for residential development. However, it does not stipulate a minimum or maximum standard. Therefore, although the SPD standard for an HMO with more than 4 bedrooms is two spaces, this is not a minimum requirement.

Parking restrictions limit the time vehicles can park on [address] outside the site. However, I have not been provided with any sound evidence of a shortage of long term car parking in the vicinity of the site or why any future occupiers who might use a car would have to drive around searching for a parking space. Even if they did have access to a car and did need to drive around local streets looking for a parking space, in my experience this would not be unusual in an urban location.

Driving around looking for a parking space may be an inconvenience and might result in residents parking further from their homes than they might wish. However, I have seen no evidence to demonstrate that this would result in harm to residential amenity, have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or lead to the obstruction of emergency vehicles. Nor have I been referred to any specific dwellings whose occupiers might experience harm to their living conditions as a result of the proposed parking arrangements.

Therefore, from the evidence before me, I am satisfied there would be suitable provision for car parking and the proposal would not harm the living conditions of occupiers of nearby dwellings. The proposal therefore complies with PP policies PCS17 and PCS23 in so far as they seek to promote development where there is good access to public transport, goods and services and protect the living environment.

Bedroom 1 would be situated at the rear of the ground floor with a pair of connecting doors between it and a proposed communal area. There would also be an external door leading to steps to the rear of the building and the bedroom would have access to an external area of decking.

Whilst the occupier of bedroom 1 might pass through the communal area past the breakfast bar seating to enter or exit the bedroom, the occupier would also have the option of using the external door to the rear of the building. On the occasions that the occupier of the bedroom does pass through the communal space to enter or leave the bedroom, the space available to users of the breakfast bar may be momentarily reduced. This would be a transient impact and no compelling evidence has been provided to demonstrate how it would harm the living conditions of future occupiers.

Although not part of the development plan, the Council’s HMO SPD 20191 sets out how policy PCS23 will be implemented. Whilst it provides guidance on living conditions and the quality of the environment, I have not been directed to any provision of the SPD which restricts the access to bedrooms from communal areas. Neither the Council’s planning officer nor its Private Sector Housing officer found that there would be harm caused by the layout of the accommodation. I have not been provided with any clear evidence to arrive at a different conclusion.

Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of bedroom 1 with regard to 1 ‘Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) -Ensuring mixed and balanced communities’ Supplementary Planning Document 2019 access and layout. The proposal would therefore comply with policy PCS23 regarding the living environment of future occupiers.

The site was last used for the sale and servicing of bicycles. It lies within the [address] local centre identified in PP policy PCS18. There is a mix of shops, financial and professional services and other commercial premises along the road where the site is situated.

Policy PCS18 sets out the development plan’s approach to local shops and services. It requires that development helps local centres to continue fulfilling their role and so development in the local centre must meet the criteria set out in the policy.

The proposal would retain a unit with a shop front at ground floor level for a use falling within Class E of the [name] Order2 (UCO). However, the rear of the ground floor of the existing building would be converted to residential use in conjunction with the proposed use as an HMO. Whilst policy PCS18 encourages residential use above ground floor level, it does not do so at ground floor level.

I have not been provided with any compelling evidence that the proposal would result in an over concentration of non-shopping uses in the local centre as a whole or in the vicinity of the proposed development. Moreover, the provision of a ground floor unit fronting the road for a use falling within Class E would not preclude the premises from meeting top-up shopping needs of nearby residents. As a result of these factors, the harm caused to the vitality and viability of the local centre as a result of the introduction of the residential use at ground floor would be limited.

Nevertheless, the location of the site within the [address] local centre means that it is not a suitable location for the introduction of ground floor residential use in place of existing ground floor commercial space. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy PCS18 regarding development within local centres.

The site is located within the 5.6km impact zone of the [name] and the SACs. Regulation 63(1) of the Habitat Regulations requires me to make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the proposal for the conservation objectives of the SPAs and SACs. I have therefore carried out an appropriate assessment.

[name] includes one of the four largest expanses of mudflats and tidal creeks on the south coast of Britain. The qualifying features of the [name] are its populations of non-breeding dark-bellied brent goose; red-breasted merganser; dunlin and black-tailed godwit.

The Chichester and [name] is internationally important for the wintering wildfowl it supports. Its qualifying features are its populations of dark-bellied brent goose; common shelduck; Eurasian wigeon; Eurasian teal; northern pintail; northern shoveler; red-breasted merganser; ringed plover; grey plover; sanderling; dunlin; bar-tailed godwit; Eurasian curlew; common redshank; ruddy turnstone; sandwich tern; common tern; and little tern. 2 The Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended)

The qualifying features of the Solent and [name] are its populations of dark-bellied brent goose; Eurasian teal; ringed plover; black-tailed godwit; Mediterranean gull; sandwich tern; roseate tern; common tern; and little tern. For the Solent and Isle of [name] the qualifying features are its coastal lagoons.

The qualifying features of the [name] are the annual vegetation of drift lines, its Atlantic salt meadows, coastal lagoons, and mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide. Other qualifying habitats are coastal shingle vegetation out of reach of waves, annuals colonising mud and sand, and sandbanks and shifting dunes with marram. The population of Desmoulin’s whorl snail is a qualifying species of the SAC.

The evidence indicates that the proximity of the appeal site to the protected sites means that future occupants of the development could contribute to disturbance of these protected areas through recreational activities. Future occupants could also generate an increase in annual nitrogen and phosphorus input to the SPAs and SACs.

The potential for adverse effects is likely to increase with the amount of residential development meaning that the combined effects could be significant and affect the integrity of the protected sites.

The Council has adopted a ‘[name] 2017 which establishes a joint approach with adjoining Councils towards the mitigation of likely significant effects on the protected sites arising from cumulative residential schemes. A strategy3 for mitigating the effect of nitrates draining into the Solent catchment area has also been adopted by the Council.

A Solent Recreation Mitigation Contribution is sought for each new dwelling which is then used to deliver mitigation for the recreational impacts on the protected sites. A Nutrient Neutrality Mitigation financial contribution is also sought based on the calculated nutrient budget for the development.

The section 111 agreement submitted with the appeal confirms that a ‘[name] of £1251 and a [name] contribution of £7675 has been paid to the Council towards mitigating the effects of the proposal on the internationally protected sites.

The Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy indicates that the [name] would be used for various projects including encouraging behavioural change of coastal visitors, providing secure habitats for birds and providing alternative greenspaces in less sensitive areas. The Nutrient Neutrality Mitigation contribution would be used to offset the nutrients which would be generated by the proposal. A planning condition can also be imposed if the appeal is allowed to secure details of water use to ensure nutrient mitigation.

I am satisfied that the contributions would be necessary to mitigate the impact of the development on the protected sites. They are also directly related to the proposed development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 3 Portsmouth City Council ‘[name] Strategy for [name] for the 2021- 2023/24 period’ 2022

I have consulted Natural England which has confirmed that the mechanism for securing the mitigation through the S111 agreement and the contributions which would be provided are sufficient to avoid adverse impacts on the protected sites. As the payment is secured through the S111 agreement, I am satisfied that likely significant effects on the integrity of the SPAs and SACs would be avoided.

For these reasons, the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the SPAs and SACs. It would therefore comply with the Habitat Regulations and with PP policy PCS13 which seeks to protect the European sites.

The Council’s pre-submission draft Portsmouth Local Plan has reached regulation 19 stage. Whilst the Committee report suggests the proposal would comply with the relevant policy in the draft plan regarding development in local centres, the draft plan has not yet been adopted and does not form part of the development plan against which the proposal must be considered.

The Council’s committee report indicates that the Council is not aware of any other existing HMOs within 50m of the site. It therefore concludes that the proposal would not create an imbalanced community applying the criteria set out in the [name]. The committee report confirms that the proposed room sizes in the HMO meet the standards required in the [name]. Whilst interested parties refer to other HMOs and query the proposed room sizes, I have not been provided with any compelling evidence which leads me to reach a different conclusion to the Council.

Although reference is made to other proposals in the vicinity, including those at [address] which is the subject of a separate appeal4, I am not aware of the full details of those sites or the issues arising from the proposals. That appeal will be the subject of a separate decision and I have determined this appeal on its individual merits.

The distance between the windows in the proposed HMO and the dwellings to the south, coupled with existing vegetation and fencing, is sufficient to prevent harm to the living conditions of occupants of those dwellings as a result of loss of privacy. Whilst there are windows in the neighbouring property to the east which face the site the proposed use of a brise-soleil in bedroom 4 and appropriate treatment to the northern most window in bedroom 8 would restrict views into the adjoining property.

The buildings in [address] exhibit a mix of roof designs and shapes, including a two storey flat roof element to the side of No 246. Whilst the proposed mansard roof would increase the bulk of the building and the proposed shop front would change the appearance of its frontage, the existing mix of building styles and roof shapes in the vicinity of the site means that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of [address].

The identity of the future occupants of the proposed HMO is not before me. I have seen no evidence that the occupation of the HMO would harm the safety of students going to the local school or that local services and infrastructure do not have the capacity to cater for future occupants if the appeal is allowed. 4 Appeal ref 6004676

In the event that the appeal is allowed, planning conditions can be imposed to limit the impact of noise on future occupants of the HMO and secure appropriate refuse stores. I address these below but have not been provided with any evidence that future occupiers would generate noise or refuse which would harm the living conditions of occupants of other dwellings in the vicinity of the site.

Reference is made to the manner in which the Council handled the planning application. This is a matter which can be pursued through other processes and does not have a bearing on my decision.

The PP is the development plan for the area in which the site is located. [name] have not found conflict with policies PCS13, PCS17 and PCS23, the limited harm which I have identified would result in conflict with policy PCS18. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan when read as a whole.

The Council can only demonstrate 4.97 years supply of deliverable housing sites which is below the minimum level required. The policies most important for determining the appeal identified above are therefore out of date for the purposes of the Framework. Consequently, with reference to paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, consideration of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is required.

Paragraph 232 of the Framework nevertheless states that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The policies in the Framework require that planning decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt and significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth. Policy PCS18 is broadly consistent with these policies therefore conflict with it should be given substantial weight in this appeal.

The Framework highlights that small sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement in the area and are often able to be built out relatively quickly. It also makes clear that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are to be addressed. Taking into account the shortfall in the Council’s supply of deliverable housing sites, the benefit of an HMO in a sustainable location providing accommodation for 8 people therefore attracts substantial weight in favour of the proposal. There would also be moderate economic benefits from the spend by future occupiers on services in the local area.

Overall, the limited adverse impact of the proposal does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to this appeal.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council if the appeal is allowed. Conditions setting out the period for commencing the development and requiring that it be carried out in accordance with the approved plans are necessary to provide certainty. It is also reasonable to require the submission of details of the materials to be used in the proposed mansard roof prior to its construction in order to ensure they complement the character and appearance of the area.

The provision of bicycle storage is necessary to promote cycling in accordance with policy PCS17. Details of this and the proposed refuse and recycling facilities should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to the occupation of the HMO.

As referred to above, a condition requiring evidence of water efficiency is reasonable and necessary to ensure nutrient mitigation. In order to protect the living conditions of future occupiers it is also reasonable to impose conditions insulating the accommodation from road noise and the Class E commercial unit. For the same reasons, a condition restricting the opening hours of the Class E unit is also reasonable. A condition restricting the number of residents in the HMO to 8 is necessary to ensure that space standards for future occupants are maintained.

In the particular circumstances of this appeal, a condition restricting the use of the commercial unit to exclude uses falling within paragraphs (d) and (f) of Class E of the UCO is reasonable to limit the effect of the use of the unit on the living conditions of future occupiers of the HMO. However, Planning Practice Guidance requires that the scope of such a condition needs to be precisely defined. I have therefore amended the Council’s suggested condition to make it more precise. Uses falling within paragraph (g) of Class E by definition can only be carried out where they do not cause detriment to the amenity of any residential area. It would therefore not be reasonable to restrict uses within paragraph (g).

A condition requiring details of the window in bedroom 4 and the northern-most side window in bedroom 8 is reasonable in order to ensure the privacy of the occupants of the adjoining property is not harmed.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings: Site, Location Plan and [name].1006·25·03 [name]. [name] and [name].1006·25·02 [name].

No development of the roof shall commence until details of the types and colours of external materials to be used (including details of the windows and roof covering and treatment of corners and joints) has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to first occupation of the property as a house in multiple occupation plans and details of secure and weatherproof bicycle storage facilities for four bicycles shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved bicycle storage facilities shall be provided at the site prior to the first occupation of the house in multiple occupation and shall thereafter be retained for the parking of bicycles at all times.

The development hereby permitted shall not (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) be occupied until written documentary evidence has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that the development has achieved a maximum water use of 110 litres per person per day as defined in paragraph 36(2)b of the Building Regulations (2010) (as amended). Such evidence shall be in the form of a post-construction water efficiency calculator. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the first occupation of the property as a house in multiple occupation plans and details of refuse and recyclable materials storage facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be provided at the site prior to the first occupation of the house in multiple occupation and shall thereafter be retained for the continued use by the occupants.

Prior to the first occupation of the house in multiple occupation a scheme for insulating habitable rooms against road traffic noise shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall then be implemented before the first occupation of the building and thereafter retained. The scheme shall be designed to ensure that the following acoustic criteria will be achieved in all habitable rooms: Daytime: LAeq(16hr) (7:00 to 23:00) 35 dB, Night-time: LAeq(8hr) (23:00 to 07:00) 30 dB and LAmax 45db.

Prior to the first occupation of the house in multiple occupation a scheme of sound insulation measures designed to reduce the transmission of airborne sound between the commercial and residential uses shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These measures shall ensure that the separating floors and walls can achieve a minimum standard of Dntw+Ctr 50dB. The approved measures shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the house in multiple occupation and thereafter maintained.

Prior to the occupation of the house in multiple occupation hereby approved, final details of the window treatment for bedroom 4 and the treatment of the northern-most side window to bedroom 8 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, the treatment shall be installed as approved and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

The commercial unit hereby approved shall only be used for purposes falling within paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e) or (g) of Class E of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class E of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

The use of the commercial unit hereby approved shall only take place between the hours of 08:00 and 20:00 Mondays to Sundays.

The house in multiple occupation hereby permitted shall be occupied by a maximum of eight residents. END OF SCHEDULE