The Portsmouth HMO appeal over 3 Lawson Road in Southsea has succeeded, with the Planning Inspectorate allowing a seven-person house in multiple occupation (HMO) and ordering Portsmouth City Council to pay part of the appellant’s appeal costs. The two decisions, dated 20 October 2026, turn on a distinction familiar to HMO owners but too easily missed when considering local concentration rules: the house was already lawfully capable of occupation by six unrelated residents.
The applicant, Rowelane Homes Ltd, sought permission to move from a six-person Class C4 HMO to a seven-person sui generis HMO. The council relied on concerns about local HMO concentration, residential amenity and environmental mitigation. Inspector R Cahalane found that the additional resident, rather than the entire existing HMO use, was the relevant change to assess. I think that is the important practical lesson, although it does not mean that every intensification application should succeed.
The Portsmouth HMO appeal also resulted in a partial costs award because two refusal reasons were not supported by clear evidence. The third reason, concerning protected coastal habitats, was handled differently after an acceptable contribution undertaking was supplied during the appeal.
Why the Portsmouth HMO appeal succeeded
Portsmouth’s 2019 HMO Supplementary Planning Document applies a concentration measure within 50 metres. The committee report recorded 23 HMOs among 95 properties, or 24.21%, well above its 10% benchmark. Committee members also referred to the concentration of HMO bedrooms in the neighbourhood. These were not imaginary concerns: the wider area already contains substantial shared housing.
However, the council had issued a certificate recognising the property’s lawful Class C4 use for up to six residents. That lawful position was available irrespective of the outcome of the application. The inspector gave the realistic six-person fallback substantial weight and treated the extra occupation as a possible increase of just one person, rather than the introduction of a new HMO address.
In the inspector’s assessment, the seventh resident would not materially change the number of HMO properties or the existing balance of households. The conclusion was that the scheme would not breach adopted Portsmouth Plan Policy PCS20 on the specific evidence before him. The Portsmouth HMO appeal therefore shows why lawful-use evidence can be decisive when a local authority assesses an increase in occupants.
Living conditions, neighbours and the existing building
The physical layout was also examined. The proposed communal kitchen and dining room measured about 35 square metres, slightly above the council’s HMO guidance. Bedrooms, shower rooms and other accommodation also exceeded the relevant local recommendations. The inspector was satisfied with outlook, daylight and ceiling heights, including the roof accommodation.
The rear outside space was comparatively small following a lawful rear extension, but the inspector considered it adequate for seating and clothes drying in the dense urban setting. Crucially, the rear extension and dormer had already been carried out lawfully under permitted development rights. Their effects were not matters to be reopened in this particular change-of-use assessment.
On neighbour amenity, the inspector accepted that seven unrelated occupiers could make more noise than a typical family. Yet a six-person HMO was already lawful, while Lawson Road also sits near the mixed commercial activity of Fawcett Road. Evidence did not show that one further occupier would produce a significant increase in disturbance. The inspector rejected a suggestion that concerns about parking justified refusal, having regard to the council’s own transport consultation response.
This is a useful reminder for applicants: the Portsmouth HMO appeal succeeded after assessment of the actual floor plans, existing lawful works, surrounding uses and the incremental effects of the proposed seventh resident. A broad claim about pressure on a neighbourhood did not replace that site-specific exercise.
Why habitat mitigation still mattered
There was a separate obstacle. An additional HMO occupier could contribute to recreational pressure on the Solent’s protected coastal habitats and to nutrient loading through wastewater. The inspector carried out an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations and consulted Natural England.
A signed undertaking under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 was accepted as late evidence in the particular circumstances of the case. It secured £348 for recreational-disturbance mitigation under the Bird Aware Solent approach and £950 for nutrient mitigation. The council confirmed the contributions had been paid and were satisfactory. The inspector found there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the protected sites once those measures were secured.
Permission is subject to conditions, including keeping cycle-storage space available and limiting water consumption to 110 litres per person per day. The Portsmouth HMO appeal should not be read as removing the need for legally effective habitat mitigation merely because the proposed increase is one resident.
Partial costs: evidence behind a committee refusal
The linked costs decision is significant in its own right. The inspector accepted that councillors may depart from professional officers’ recommendations. What they cannot do without risk is rely on reasons that are vague or unsupported by objective analysis. The inspector found insufficient explanation of the alleged harm to the character and amenity of the area and identified unnecessary appeal expense incurred in answering the first two refusal reasons.
The costs award was partial, not full. It covers the costs at appeal incurred in addressing the first and second refusal reasons, with the amount to be agreed or assessed. The third reason, involving protected-site mitigation, did not lead to a costs award: the relevant undertaking had not been provided at the time of the original application decision, and the committee could have sought it within an appropriate timeframe.
The Portsmouth HMO appeal illustrates both sides of appeal costs. A poorly evidenced refusal can be expensive for a council, but an applicant who leaves an environmental mitigation matter unresolved at application stage cannot automatically expect the council to bear the resulting appeal costs.
What other HMO applicants can take from it
Before applying to intensify an established HMO, obtain a reliable record of its existing lawful planning use and maximum occupation. A licensing record and planning permission are not interchangeable: the relevant planning fallback must be evidenced. Then assess the actual change in people, activity, amenity and any environmental contributions, rather than relying on the building’s label.
Applicants should also read the Planning Geek HMO planning guide and our guide to local HMO concentration policies. The separate appeal costs guide explains why a successful planning appeal does not, by itself, establish unreasonable conduct.
The Portsmouth HMO appeal is an England decision on its own facts, not a change to national HMO use classes. The original Planning Inspectorate appeal record (reference 6012912) contains the decision and accompanying costs order. The decision is also available via AppealBase.
0 Comments