13-bedroom HMO in Portsmouth is set to be given planning permission this week

Portsmouth City Council’s planning committee will be asked to approve the Scott Baker Properties application on Wednesday, despite two councillors and eight neighbours opposing the ‘grossly overdeveloped’ scheme.

A previous 16-bed proposal for the Homecare building in London Road was rejected by council planners last year who said it was too ‘cramped’ and would not provide a good standard of living.

The revised application was submitted a few months later, scaling back ambitions in a bid to overcome concerns.

NOW SEE: 73 pictures from Hampshire’s quirkiest music festival

‘There is a rapidly increasing need for houses in multiple occupation across the UK, and Portsmouth is no exception,’ a statement submitted on behalf of the developer said. ‘With rising utility costs, living within a bills-included type of accommodation is becoming a more attractive option for many. Taking on board previous reasons for refusal the design has been amended.’

But concerns over the ‘dire’ parking situation in the area, with no spaces provided and the scale of the plans, prompted objections to be submitted.

Beresford Road resident Rachel Patterson said: ‘Anyone that has any knowledge of this area will realise adding 13 bedrooms will add to the already overloaded parking situation. The plan does not seem to address any kind of parking solution or provision. This is beyond ridiculous.’

These concerns were echoed by a council transport officer who said the surrounding roads were already often over capacity and that this would exacerbate the problem.

The application was ‘called in’ for a decision by Hilsea councillor Daniel Wemyss and his former fellow ward representative Scott Payter-Harris, requiring the decision to be made by the planning committee.

But in a report published ahead of the committee’s meeting, planning officers have recommended that the plans be approved.

‘It is acknowledged that a 13-bedroom HMO is likely to generate more on-site activity than the former office use, particularly during evenings and weekends and particularly within the outside space at the rear of the building,’ it said. ‘However, this is not considered likely to cause such noise and disturbance so as to justify refusal.’

The report added that the proximity of the building to public transport connections meant permission could not be refused on ground of the lack of parking.