Appeal 6001781

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from C3 dwelling to C4 House of [name] at [site address] , Portsmouth, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00480/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 001 [name], 002 [name], 003 [name], 004 [name], 005 [name], 006 [name], 007 [name] and 008 [name].

The development shall be occupied by no more than six residents at any one time while in use as a House in [name].

Secure and weather-proof bicycle storage facilities for a minimum of four bicycles shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans within three months of this decision and shall thereafter be retained for the parking of bicycles at all times.

The appeal documents confirm that the change of use has already been implemented in accordance with the submitted plans. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety and residential amenity, with regards to car parking provision.

The appeal property forms part of a uniform terrace with no off-street parking available on site. It lies within a residential area characterised by regular streets of terraced housing, and the wider surroundings include a range of local shops, services and several bus stops.

Although the property is currently operating as a House in [name] (HMO), its lawful use remains a C3 dwellinghouse. If it were to revert to that lawful use, a large family household could realistically generate multiple vehicles, all of which would be parked on the street. This represents an appropriate baseline against which the parking implications of the development can be assessed.

The Highway Authority concluded, during the application process, that the development would not result in an unacceptable increase in parking demand or give rise to a material highway safety risk. The assessment acknowledged that the surrounding streets experience a level of parking stress typical of dense residential areas but found that the incremental effect of the HMO would not be severe. No technical evidence has been submitted to contradict or undermine that conclusion.

Concerns were raised regarding the extent of double yellow lines within the wider area. During my site visit, I observed double yellow lines around and opposite the junction with [address], and similar arrangements at the junctions with [address] and [address]. However, I also noted substantial lengths of unrestricted kerbside space between those junctions on both sides of the street, together with further opportunities for on-street parking within the adjoining side roads. The presence of double yellow lines therefore does not amount to a material constraint on the ability to park within reasonable walking distance of the appeal site.

The site is also within a realistic walking distance of shops, services and bus routes. Secure cycle storage is provided on site, accessed via a rear route to [address], offering a practical alternative to car use for day-to-day travel. In this context, although on-street parking in the surrounding area is in relatively high use, there is no technical evidence before me to indicate that the development would generate a level of demand that would materially worsen highway safety or amenity when compared with the baseline associated with the property’s lawful use.

For these reasons, the development would not give rise to an unacceptable impact on highway safety or residential amenity, with regards to car parking provision. It therefore accords with Policies PCS17 and PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan 2012, insofar as they require that development does not materially worsen on-street parking or create parking conditions harmful to safety or amenity. It also complies with the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2014), which provides guidance on the application of those policies.

Some interested parties consider the 50-metre radius used in the Council’s HMO concentration policy to be too limited an area to reflect the wider pattern of occupation. However, the development plan requires assessment within this defined radius, and the Council applied it accordingly.

Concerns have also been raised regarding the concentration of HMOs in the area, the potential for overdevelopment, anti-social behaviour and pressure on local infrastructure.

The proposal involves no physical enlargement of the building and would not increase its footprint or massing. A six-person HMO within an existing large dwelling would not introduce an intensity of occupation materially different from that of a large family household and does not amount to overdevelopment.

No evidence has been presented to show that this property has generated anti-social behaviour or that the continued use as an HMO would be likely to do so. Planning decisions must be based on land-use impacts rather than assumptions about future occupiers, and any behavioural issues would fall under separate regulatory regimes.

The change of use would not introduce a scale of occupation that would place a demonstrably greater burden on local services than the lawful C3 use. No technical evidence has been provided to show that the proposal would materially strain local infrastructure.

I have also noted that the site lies within the zone of influence of the Solent Special Protection Areas, designated European sites of international importance for their bird populations and associated habitats. Residential development within these areas gives rise to recognised pathways of impact, including increased recreational pressure on sensitive coastal habitats and additional nutrient loading arising from wastewater generated by new dwellings.

However, given the fact that the property is an existing house and could be occupied by the same number of persons in a single family as would be in the HMO, the Council’s officer report indicates that the development is unlikely to result in a material increase in recreational pressure or materially generate additional nutrient loading. As such, the development is not likely to have a significant effect on the designated European sites of international importance.

A condition listing the approved plans are required to ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the assessed scheme.

Given the nature of the development, it is necessary to limit occupation to a maximum of six residents to secure an acceptable standard of accommodation. My assessment of nutrient-related matters is also based on this level of occupation.

A condition requiring the provision and retention of secure cycle storage is needed to ensure the development functions acceptably and does not give rise to harm to highway safety or residential amenity. I have, however, amended the Council’s wording to reflect the retrospective nature of the appeal development.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.