The Portsmouth HMO appeal has overturned councillors’ refusal of a nine-person scheme and left the council facing a full costs award.
At 252 Havant Road, the sequence matters: officers recommended approval, members refused, the developer appealed, and the council then failed to provide the evidence needed to substantiate the refusal.
Officers had recommended approval
The application by Pompey Properties Ltd proposed changing part of the ground floor commercial space and the first-floor flat into a nine-bedroom, nine-person sui generis HMO, with a mansard roof and single-storey rear extension.
The ground floor was occupied by a funeral director in Class E use, with residential accommodation above. The scheme retained a commercial unit at the front.
Portsmouth’s officer report recommended a conditional grant. On HMO concentration, officers counted 26 residential properties within 50 metres and no confirmed HMOs. The proposal would therefore have produced a concentration of 3.85%, below the council’s 10% threshold. Even if a separate eight-person HMO proposal at 246 Havant Road were included, officers calculated 7.41%.
Parking was tighter. Portsmouth’s standards expected two spaces for a sui generis HMO of this size. One space was shown, leaving a one-space shortfall on the applicant’s plan, although the Inspector later questioned whether that single rear space was realistically usable after the extension.
Councillors refused the scheme
Members were entitled to disagree with the professional recommendation. They refused on grounds covering the reduced commercial floorspace, effects on neighbouring living conditions, the mansard roof and character, and parking and highway safety.
The developer appealed under reference 6004676.
Inspector E Worley found that retaining a smaller commercial unit would not, on the evidence, materially undermine the local centre. The mansard roof was also acceptable in a varied roofscape, while the alleged noise and disturbance from HMO comings and goings had not been substantiated.
On parking, the Inspector treated the practical shortfall as two spaces because of concerns about the usability of the proposed rear space. Even so, the site was accessible to shops, bus services and cycling opportunities, and the shortfall did not justify dismissing the appeal.
Why the Portsmouth HMO appeal led to full costs
The separate costs decision is the sharper part of the story.
The council did not submit a substantive statement of case. The Inspector was left largely with the committee minutes and the stated refusal reasons, but found no robust evidence to show why the retained commercial unit was unacceptable, why the mansard would cause the alleged harm, or why HMO occupation would produce unacceptable disturbance.
Parking was particularly exposed. No parking survey is identified in the officer report, and the costs decision records that the council produced no technical evidence of existing parking difficulties or parking stress at appeal. The officer report had already concluded that a parking refusal could not reasonably be sustained.
The Inspector also noted inconsistency with the council’s treatment of the nearby 246 Havant Road proposal without a clear planning explanation for the distinction.
The full costs award was not punishment for members disagreeing with officers. It followed because the refusal reasons were not backed by sufficiently robust evidence once the decision reached appeal.
The appeal and costs decisions were issued on 22nd September 2026.
Planning Geek recently reported a separate full costs award at Beckington. Portsmouth is a fresh event with a different lesson: a committee can depart from officer advice, but the resulting reasons still need evidence capable of surviving an appeal.
See Planning Geek’s guide to appeal costs. You can also read the locally hosted appeal decision and the separate costs decision. The Planning Inspectorate record for appeal 6004676 remains available as the official online record. Portsmouth also publishes the 252 Havant Road officer report; the minutes of the 1st October 2025 committee meeting are contained in the council’s 22nd October 2025 Planning Committee public pack.
0 Comments