Appeal 6007095

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner heading above, the development description is taken from the decision notice rather than the application form, as it accurately describes the proposal, and the appellant has indicated that its alteration was not disputed.

The main issues are whether future occupiers of the appeal development would be provided with adequate living conditions, with particular regard to external private space; and outlook.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey terraced dwelling. It currently benefits from a House in [name] (HMO) licence for up to four occupants. The existing space rear of the dwelling could be described as a yard rather than a garden, as it is mostly paved.

Although the size of this yard space is small, it is large enough to facilitate some external seating. It also contained a clothes line at the time of my site visit. This outdoor space can therefore serve a positive function for some occupiers to sit out at, to receive daylight and sunlight, and to dry clothes. Space to the side of the existing rear outshot is of very limited width. It seems to function primarily as a rear access route from the dwelling and to provide light sources for its adjacent ground floor windows, rather than as any meaningful external private space.

As indicated in the officer report, the appeal site benefits form recent prior approval for the construction of a single storey rear extension, extending 5m beyond the dwelling’s rear wall. This extension appears to be indicated on the proposed plans before me. Although it had not been implemented at the time of my visit, it is an important material consideration as a fallback.

The Local Planning Authority (LPA) has advised that any further increase from four occupants would be subject to HMO licensing requirements, although there is no demonstrable evidence before me that such a licence would not be feasible, subject to the relevant details and requirements. The LPA also indicates that tenancy agreements have demonstrated a lawful HMO use. Having regard to all above matters, a six-person HMO occupancy of the appeal site is also an important material consideration, as it is a fallback of real prospect.

I afford the above scenarios due weight as genuine fallback positions. In doing so, I must accept the possibility that the appeal scheme would result in only two additional HMO occupants, as well as reduction in existing rear external private space. However, that extent of HMO occupancy increase still amounts to a material change of use that goes beyond a modest intensification, given that the occupancy would form single adults in each bedroom, rather than a single-family household.

Moreover, the proposed block plan includes a bicycle store that would take up a substantial proportion of the space between the rear extension and the site’s rear boundary. Provision for four long stay cycle spaces would be required to comply with Policy PCS17 of the Portsmouth Plan ([name]) 2012 (the PP), as well as the Council’s Parking Standards and Transport Assessments Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2014). The remaining external space would be very limited in size and function. It would serve as little more than an access route from the dwelling to the bicycle store.

It is put to me that the site benefits from excellent access to alternative outdoor amenity provision, as the property is within walking distance of local parks, greenspaces, and the seafront and beach. [name] accept that those amenities would be within walking distance for many, given the respective distances from the appeal site, I do not consider those alternatives as desirable or realistic options for all future occupiers, including those with protected characteristics. Therefore, reliance on those alternatives would not provide acceptable living conditions for all future occupiers, even when considering the urban coastal context.

Whilst outdoor space is not a requirement of the Council’s Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning Document (HMOSPD) (2019), PP Policy PCS23 requires the provision of a good standard of living environment for future residents of the development. Moreover, one of the Policy Outcomes listed in the PP for this policy is to create an attractive living environment. I see no reason why this precludes the provision of adequate external private space for HMO occupiers.

I therefore conclude that future occupiers of the appeal development would not be provided with adequate living conditions in respect of external private space. In this respect, the appeal scheme conflicts with Policy PCS23 of the PP, the relevant requirements of which are already set out above.

The proposed communal kitchen and dining area of 31.2m2 is well above the 22.5m2 standard set out in the HMOSPD, and the guidance contained in the Council’s Standards for Houses in [name] (2018). Most of the bedrooms would also materially exceed the size recommendations contained in the above referenced local guidance. However, these internal spaces and rooms serve clearly separate functions for occupiers than external private space. Therefore, individually or cumulatively, they do not mitigate the inadequate provision of external private space that I have identified.

The planning application was determined by the LPA in February 2026. The emerging Portsmouth Local Plan was submitted for examination in March 2026, and the LPA’s first reason for refusal cites conflict with its Policy PLP22. The LPA has advised that there has been no progress on the emerging plan’s examination. As it is thus still at a preliminary stage of examination, and in accordance with paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I give Policy PLP22 no weight, as it might be subject to change as part of the examination process. It has thus had no bearing on my determination of this appeal.

The rear extension would provide an open-plan communal dining area beyond the existing kitchen. The sole source of outlook for the dining area would however be provided by one side window that would directly face the side boundary closeboard fence at a very close proximity. This would appear and feel oppressive and would therefore provide inadequate outlook. Future occupiers of the appeal scheme would thus not be provided with adequate living conditions in respect of outlook. The scheme thus conflicts with PP Policy PCS23, insofar as it requires provision of a good standard of living environment for future residents of the development.

The rear extension could be implemented under prior approval. However, for the reasons already set out in the first main issue, an HMO occupancy increase at this site from six persons to eight persons amounts to a material change of use that goes beyond a modest intensification. The harm I have identified in respect of this main issue therefore amounts to an additional reason to dismiss the appeal.

The evidence before me indicates that the proposal may have a likely significant effect on the conservation objectives of relevant designated sites. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitat Regulations) require that permission may only be granted after having ascertained that it will not affect the integrity of [name] and Ramsar sites. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other substantive grounds, I have not considered this matter further. It has therefore not been necessary for me to carry out an Appropriate Assessment as required by the Habitat Regulations.

The appeal proposal would provide adequate bathroom and WC provision for future occupiers. Compliance with the abovementioned SPD and Council guidance in this regard however neither weighs in favour nor against allowing this appeal.

I understand that subsequent revised application submissions to the LPA include an alternative 8-bedroom HMO proposal, smaller extensions, a reduced communal living area, and larger outdoor amenity spaces in comparison to the appeal scheme before me. Be that as it may, I also must determine the appeal proposal before me based on its own merits and with regard to the evidence before me. The above revised submissions have thus had no bearing on my determination of this appeal.

The extent of conflict with PP PCS23 that I have identified is significant, and thus amounts to conflict with the development plan as a whole. The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, with its current supply being 2.4 years. I also note that the latest [name] (HDT) results published by the Government in December 2024 shows the Council's HDT result as 26% (i.e. between the financial years of 2020-2023, there were only 26% as many completions as the number of homes required). The above indicates a significant housing supply shortfall that has persisted in the city for several years.

In such circumstances, Framework paragraph 11d)i sets out that where policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date1, permission should be granted unless the application of Framework policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Such Framework policies include paragraph 195 concerning habitats sites. [name] have not carried out an Appropriate Assessment, for the purposes of this planning balance I set aside paragraph 195.

Instead, as per Framework paragraph 11d)ii, I now consider whether any adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies including those for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, and securing well-designed places. The appeal scheme would make a small contribution to the city’s housing supply shortfall, and it is within a sustainable urban location.

Small sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area. Given the above, along with the extent of housing shortfall in the city, the associated benefits of the proposal are afforded moderate weight.

Whilst the Framework also supports the efficient use of land, it also seeks to achieve well-designed places. In this regard, Framework paragraph 135(f) sets out that planning decisions should ensure that developments promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for future users. The appeal scheme is not well-designed insofar as it would fail to provide adequate external private space and internal outlook from the communal dining area for future occupiers.

In the specific circumstances of this appeal, the adverse impacts I have identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations before me do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.