Appeal 6003397

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

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

The appeal was made against a failure to give notice of a decision on the planning application within the prescribed period. However, the Council has advised that, had it been in a position to determine the application, it would have been refused.

Since the submission of the appeal, I have been made aware of the Council’s decision to issue a lawful development certificate for the use of [address] as a House of [name] (HMO). The appellant has commented on this additional material, and I am therefore satisfied that taking it into account would not result in any procedural unfairness. I have therefore determined the appeal on that basis.

The appellant has also submitted an amended plan showing two roof lanterns on the rear extension. As this alteration does not materially change the nature or effects of the proposal, I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by my taking it into account. The appeal has therefore been considered with reference to the amended plan.

The main issue is whether the proposal would lead to an unacceptable concentration of HMOs in the area, with particular regard to its effect on the mix and balance of the community.

The appeal site comprises a mid-terrace, three-bedroom dwelling within a predominantly residential area. The terraces along [address] are set back behind small front gardens, with long, narrow gardens to the rear, some containing outbuildings.

The proposal includes a loft conversion with a rear box dormer and the construction of a single-storey rear extension. The works would facilitate the creation of a six-bedroom HMO. A bicycle store would be provided within an existing outbuilding in the rear garden.

Policy PCS20 of the Portsmouth Plan (2012) (PP) seeks to maintain mixed and balanced communities by permitting new HMOs only where there is not already an over-concentration, and where the proposal itself would not give rise to such an imbalance. For the purposes of this policy, Class C4 uses, mixed C3/C4 uses, and sui generis HMOs are all treated as HMOs.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Houses in [name] (HMOs) – [name] and [name] (2019) (SPD) provides guidance on applying Policy PCS20, including how to assess whether concentrations of HMOs at street or neighbourhood level would be harmful.

The SPD states that a community will be considered ‘imbalanced’ where more than 10% of residential properties within a 50-metre radius of the application site are in HMO use. This threshold provides a clear benchmark for identifying when the number of HMOs is likely to undermine the mix and balance of housing. It is therefore relevant and a material consideration in determining the appeal.

The lawful development certificate at [address] clarifies that there are five existing HMOs within a 50-metre radius of the appeal site, representing 9.3% of properties in that area. The appellant disputes the correctness of that certificate. I acknowledge the points raised, but it is not within my remit to revisit the merits of a separate decision. On the evidence before me, the presence of those HMOs is relevant only insofar as it informs my assessment of concentration and community balance in relation to this proposal.

I am therefore content to rely on the Council’s figure of five existing HMOs within the 50-metre radius. On that basis, the proposed development would increase the proportion of HMOs from 9.3% to 11.1%, thereby taking it above the SPD’s 10% threshold. Although the numerical increase would be modest, it would nonetheless reduce the supply of family housing and tip the balance of the local housing mix beyond the point at which the SPD considers a community to become imbalanced.

For these reasons, the proposal would create an over-concentration of HMOs in the area, resulting in harm to the mix and balance of housing. It therefore conflicts with Policy PCS20 of the PP and the guidance in the SPD, which together seek to maintain balanced communities and prevent harmful concentrations of HMOs.

The appellant has raised concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the application. However, such matters fall outside the scope of this planning appeal and have instead been addressed in my determination of the associated costs appeal.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.