Appeal 6004666

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from C3 dwellinghouse to sui generis 7 bed, 7 person HMO at [site address] , Portsmouth, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 25/00584/FUL and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] of C&T Lettings Ltd against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

A Section 111 Undertaking (S111)1 was submitted during the appeal process. This would secure a financial contribution to mitigate the effect of the development on the [name]. I shall return to this later in my decision.

The Council has made reference to the Pre-Submission Portsmouth Local Plan 2024 (emerging plan) which was approved for public consultation on the 28 May 2024 and has recently been submitted for examination on the 18 March 2026. Paragraphs 48 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) state that due weight should be given to such policies according to the stage of preparation of the emerging plan, alongside the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the Framework.

The evidence indicates that the emerging plan has not yet reached adoption stage and is at an early stage of plan preparation. Therefore, the policies within it, as material planning considerations, are of limited weight and cannot at this stage be afforded full weight in decision making terms. I am therefore required to determine 1 The Local Government Act 1972. this appeal in accordance with the relevant saved policies of the Portsmouth City Local Plan 2001-2011 (PLP) in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

There is no dispute regarding the external works to the property. The Council indicates in their committee report that the proposed single storey rear extension and roof addition shown on the proposed plans would constitute permitted development2 under the property’s existing lawful use as a dwelling house which would not require planning permission, and I have no reason to disagree.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the availability of on-street car parking in the area, with particular regard to highway safety; and • the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the [name].

[site address] is a mid-terraced period property located within a predominantly residential area. The houses are set back from the public highway behind small, enclosed front gardens, typically accommodating refuse receptacles.

It is a reasonable consideration that 7 unrelated individuals living at [address] and could own vehicles which they would wish to park in the area. Moreover, given that the proposal falls within the category of a large HMO sui generis use, the number of occupants would exceed the number of residents typically accommodated within a C3 (dwelling house) or C4 (small HMO use).

The Parking Standards and [name], Supplementary Planning Document (2014) (PSTASPD) provides guidance on the expected quantum of parking provision for different residential development types, rather than stipulate a minimum or maximum standard. Although the PSTASPD does not have the status of policy, this document is an important material consideration.

The existing dwelling house use would ordinarily be expected to provide 1.5 car parking spaces, whereas the proposed conversion of the property to a sui generis large HMO use would be expected to provide 2 spaces. This results in a shortfall of only 0.5 parking space compared with the existing situation. I also find that the property is being extended through permitted development rights and the appellant sets out that an enlarged dwelling house with 4 bedrooms or more would be expected to provide 2 parking spaces through the PSTASPD requirements. This is a relevant material consideration, where building works were underway to the property at the time of my site visit. As such, I consider that the fallback position is a greater than theoretical possibility, and that there is compelling evidence that if the appeal were dismissed, the fallback would be pursued. Moreover, the PSTASPD sets out that an enlarged C3 dwelling house of 4 bedrooms or more could provide the same parking demand as that of the large HMO proposal. 2 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO).

I have not been provided substantive evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would give rise to harmful additional parking demand, nor that there are plans for a controlled parking zone in this area. [address] is a one-way street and there are schools in the locality as well as local businesses along [address], the Council’s highways officer has not raised highway safety concerns or requested an on-street parking survey, which is a material consideration to which I attach significant weight. Such surveys are typically required only where there is a realistic prospect that a development could generate harmful parking stress. Additionally, whilst I acknowledge that my site visit took place on a weekday in the mid-afternoon and represents only a single point in time, I observed that there was capacity for on street parking within [address] and the surrounding streets, and that vehicular activity was quiet and consistent with that of a residential road.

Given the limited shortfall of 0.5 of a parking space based on the current lawful use of the property, and noting that the proposal relates to the conversion of an existing residential dwelling that already generates parking demand in the locality, it would not give rise to a harmful effect on existing parking provision within the area, nor impact residential amenity through parking related pressures, or increase the risk of accidents from drivers looking for parking spaces.

The appeal property is well located for access to local services and is served by nearby bus routes, which would offer future occupants a realistic alternative to the private car. Additionally, secure bicycle parking provision is also proposed to the rear garden area which could accommodate the storage of 4 bicycles, which is in accordance with the PSTASPD requirements and could be secured through an appropriate condition.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable effect on the availability of on-street car parking in the area, nor would it cause harm to highway safety. The proposal is in accordance with saved Policy PCS17 of the PLP in so far as it references that the parking standards for new development are set out in the PSTASPD. I also find no conflict with saved Policy PCS23 of the PLP which, amongst other matters, seeks new development to provide car parking and cycle storage to be secure, well designed, integral to the scheme and convenient to users.

The appeal site falls within the recognised zone of influence of the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Areas (the [name]), which include the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar site, Chichester and [name]/Ramsar site, Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons Special Area of Conservation (SAC), [name], Solent and [name] and the Solent and [name], which are [name] as defined by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). The European Sites are internationally important due to their bird population, including over-wintering waders and wildfowl such as dark-bellied brent geese. There are also plants, habitats and other animals of national and international importance.

Saved Policy PCS13 of the PLP sets out that development which would have an adverse effect on a European Site would be refused. It further requires development to recognise the importance of currently important Brent goose feeding sites and high tide wader roosts outside the site boundaries to the ecological integrity of the [name].

The conservation objectives for the [name] are to ensure that the integrity of the sites is maintained or restored as appropriate, to protect the vulnerable over-wintering waders, wildfowl and their habitats. The principal pathways of impact include population growth associated with new housebuilding and increased recreational activity at the coast, resulting in disturbance to the bird population. Additionally, the conservation status is identified as unfavourable due to eutrophication caused by increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorous in the water environment.

The proposal would result in an increase in residential occupancy at the appeal site. Given the susceptibility and vulnerability of the qualifying features of the [name] to such uses, particularly when considered in combination with other local development, the proposal would have a likely significant effect on the [name] through recreational activity and wastewater implications from the increase in residential occupancy. I must therefore consider whether measures could be put in place to avoid or mitigate these impacts.

The appellant has provided a signed S111 with the appeal. The legal agreement secures financial contributions towards mitigation measures in accordance with [name] ([name]) (2024) (BAS), which aims to prevent additional recreational activity from harming the birds, through the employment of a team of rangers who patrol the coast and lead on engagement activities with monitoring reviews carried out. Advice is given to members of the public to encourage behaviour changes which will benefit the over-wintering birds and their vulnerability to disturbance.

The S111 also secures contributions in accordance with the [name] Strategy for [name], for the 2021-2023/24 period (2022) (UINNMS) with provision towards the Council’s nutrient neutral mitigation credit bank, or third-party mitigation. Through the acquisition of farmland and/ or the change in management of existing land holdings, from intensively used agriculture releasing high levels of nutrients into the Solent, to a use that produces a much lower nutrient output. The difference in nitrogen output is therefore used to offset the impact of the new development. In addition to the payment of a contribution, the UINNMS requires new development to be granted with standard conditions to require higher levels of water efficiency (an expected 110 litres per person per day).

The Council has commented that the S111 has been agreed and are satisfied that the proposed mitigation paid would be sufficient to secure adequate mitigation against any likely significant effect on the [name] arising from the development.

Natural England (NE) has been consulted as part of this Appropriate Assessment and is content that the measures secured by the S111 would mitigate the adverse effects associated with the proposed development to the [name]. As the competent authority, I am satisfied that the measures funded in this manner would secure and ensure the delivery of mitigation sufficient to address the harm likely to be caused by the development.

Taking account of the consultation response from NE, and the approach to the application of mitigation measures set out in the BAS and UINNMS, I am satisfied that the financial contribution is necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms. The obligation would contribute towards the provision of appropriate mitigation measures and given the location of the site, within the recognised zone of influence of the [name], the contribution is directly related to the appeal scheme. In addition, as it relates to a standard charge based on the scale and type of residential development proposed, I consider it to be fairly and reasonably related to the proposal in scale and kind. The S111 therefore complies with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and paragraph 58 of the Framework.

For the above reasons, having sought the views of NE and following appropriate assessment, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the [name]. It follows that the proposal would comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and saved Policy PCS13 of the PLP which requires the refusal of development which would have an adverse effect on a European Site.

I note the recent appeal decision at nearby 1 Munster Road3 which allowed the change of use from a dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a 7-bed/7-person House in [name] ([name]). Taking that decision into account in regard to the potential for an additional HMO to be implemented, and based on the evidence before me, the proposal would not result in a harmful concentration of HMOs in the locality and would remain below the threshold set out in the Houses in [name] (HMOs), [name] and Balanced Communities Supplementary Planning Document (2019) (HMOSPD).

While not policy, the HMOSPD provides important guidance on the application of saved PLP Policy PCS20. Even accounting for the recent appeal at [address], the proportion of HMOs in the area would still be below the threshold at which the HMOSPD suggests there would be an overconcentration of such uses. On this basis, the proposal would not cause harm through the loss of a family sized dwelling, nor would it adversely affect the mix and balance of tenure types in the area.

Some concerns have been raised about the accuracy of the data in calculating the number of HMOs in the locality and an example of flatted development at the junction of [address] and [address] has been given. However, there is nothing substantive to suggest the Council’s data is flawed or that there is a significant concentration of HMOs in the vicinity of the appeal site. Additionally, it is not for this appeal to review the HMOSPD or the threshold at which it is considered that an over concentration of such uses occurs.

Furthermore, I have no information before me to suggest that the occupancy would be transient or short-term in nature, or that it would differ substantially from other rental properties in the area. Nor have I been provided evidence that length of tenancy is a requirement of the Council’s policy for new HMO development. In addition, no information before me suggests that the proposal would facilitate drug offenses or constitute a threat to children living locally. As a residential use, I do not find that any potential vaping by future occupants in the external environment would 3 Appeal reference: APP/Z1775/W/25/3373780 result in additional harm to air quality beyond that which could occur at a dwelling house.

The proposed use at the appeal site may result in an increase in the number of persons resident at the property and a corresponding rise in the frequency of comings and goings. However, the greater intensity of use, even with 7 unrelated individuals, is not so significant as to have a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of local residents due to noise and disturbance. Any additional noise and disturbance as a result of the HMO, along with the potential for anti-social behaviour, would not necessarily be greater than might occur if the property were occupied by a single family of up to 6 individuals. Additionally, there is no commentary from the Council’s environmental health officer regarding concerns with the proposal, or the need to install sound insulation to mitigate against noise transmission with the adjoining terraced properties, which is an important material consideration. Further, any issues relating to noise from nearby restaurants and extractor systems are matters outside of the scope of this appeal.

Additionally, any issues relating to noise from construction of the extension and roof addition fall outside the considerations of this appeal, which is dealing only with the change of use. I also note that the Council is satisfied with the proposed living accommodation for future occupiers, including the internal room sizes and configuration shown on the proposed plans, and I have no reason to disagree.

I have taken into account all other concerns raised, including those relating to the quality of life for adjoining and future occupiers, drainage and waste management issues including fly tipping and vermin, and the potential impacts on utility services, policing, schools, health facilities and biodiversity issues. However, none of these matters carry sufficient weight to alter my overall conclusions, particularly given the potential increase in residential occupancy at the site. In addition, matters relating to fire safety, security, and the management of anti-social behaviour require compliance with HMO licencing conditions, which are regulated under separate legislation. Furthermore, concerns regarding property prices and precedent are not relevant material considerations.

Additionally, I have not been provided information to demonstrate that the use of the building as an HMO would give rise to adverse effects to the general maintenance of the building or the character or appearance of the property, where the proposed residential use would assimilate within its context.

The appeal has been assessed on its planning merits and criticism of the Council’s handling of the planning application by the appellant and interested parties falls outside the scope of this appeal. I also find that the Council’s statutory consultation process was satisfactory and in accordance with the legislative requirements4.

The Council has suggested several conditions which I have considered in light of the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. [name] agree the conditions are necessary, I have adjusted the wording of the conditions to improve precision and enforceability. I have also added wording to ensure that the occupancy of the property is restricted. 4 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

In addition to the standard three-year time limit condition for implementation, I have imposed a condition that defines the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

Conditions to agree details of bicycle storage are necessary to support the use of sustainable methods of travel and is in accordance with the quantum required in the Council’s parking standards set out in the PSTASPD. Additionally, a condition requiring details of the refuse and recycling storage facilities is necessary in the interest of visual amenity and to ensure that the proposal supports the Council’s relevant waste reduction targets.

In accordance with the UINNMS, to ensure that the development does not exceed the scope of the nitrate mitigation credits purchased, a condition is necessary to restrict future water usage, in the interests of protecting the integrity of the [name].

For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the development would have an acceptable effect on the availability of on-street car parking in the area, with particular regard to highway safety; and would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the [name]. The proposal accords with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations to suggest that the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing nos. TQRQM25132140153007, TQRQM25132143606587 and Proposed Planning Drawing 16Munster·25·2 [name].

Prior to the first occupation of the property as a large sui generis, 7-bedroom, 7-person House in [name], secure and weatherproof bicycle storage facilities for four bicycles shall be provided in accordance with details that have first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved bicycle storage facilities shall thereafter be retained for the continued use by the occupants.

Prior to the first occupation of the property as a large sui generis, 7-bedroom, 7-person House in [name], refuse and recyclable waste storage facilities shall be provided in accordance with details that have first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved waste storage facilities shall thereafter be retained for the continued use by the occupants.

Prior to the first occupation of the property as a large sui generis, 7-bedroom, 7-person House in [name], written documentary evidence, in the form of a post construction water efficiency calculator, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to demonstrate 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). End of conditions