Controversial motion to include council-owned HMOs in planning sparks fierce debate

At a Portsmouth City Council meeting, Portsmouth Independent Party (PIP) councillors Russell Simpson and George Madgwick put forward a motion requesting council-owned houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) be included when assessing HMO planning applications. Currently, Portsmouth restricts HMOs to no more than 10 per cent of homes within a 50-metre radius.

Cllr Simpson referred to HMOs as a “blight” on family homes, arguing that council-owned HMOs contribute to exceeding the 10 per cent threshold in some areas. The motion seeks a review of council-owned and licensed HMOs to identify areas exceeding or nearing the threshold, and requests that council-owned HMOs be considered in private HMO application decisions.

Housing and tackling homelessness cabinet member, Cllr Darren Sanders, countered, explaining these “council-owned HMOs” provide supported accommodation for care leavers, domestic abuse survivors, and adults with learning disabilities.

“I hope I don’t have to explain to this council why publicising their homes is a bad idea,” he said.

Cllr Sanders noted the council owns 45 supported HMOs and leases two, describing their inclusion in planning applications as already routine. He cited Ian Maguire, head of planning, who called the motion’s request as “somewhat redundant”.

Cllr Madgwick rejected Mr Maguire’s statement, citing conflicting information from planning officers and arguing sensitive details could be shared privately in exempt sessions inaccessible to the public.

Cllr Gerald Vernon-Jackson expressed alarm, urging Cllr Simpson to withdraw the motion, which he warned could endanger vulnerable residents. He stressed that victims of abuse, care leavers, and individuals with learning disabilities could be targeted by those wishing to exploit or harm them. He also doubted the security of exempt sessions, noting leaks can occur.

Cllr Steve Pitt, leader of the council, addressed PIP members directly stating: “You might want to know but I’m here to tell you shouldn’t know, this is wrong and you should not be asking this question.”

He argued that only the 50m radius policy is relevant under planning law, cautioning that it could reveal or narrow down the locations of these homes.

Cllr Charlotte Gerada, leader of the Labour group, condemned the motion as “appalling”, criticising its language and questioning how HMO tenants feel when labelled a “blight”. She highlighted that many residents have no choice but to live in HMOs due to their affordability.

The leader of the Conservative group, Cllr Simon Bosher, criticised PIP for placing “an awful lot of faith” in exempt sessions, suggesting planning committees risk becoming “a bad version of the hokey cokey – going in and out of exempt sessions”.

The motion was defeated, with eight votes in favour, nineteen against, and one abstention.

Cllr Russell Simpson claimed council-owned HMOs are not considered in private HMO applications and later presented Cllr Sanders with examples of past approved applications that, he argued, failed to account for council-owned HMOs.

Cllr George Madgwick accused members of trying to “muddy the waters”, stating the motion simply called for council-owned HMOs to be considered in planning committees. He described the claim that this provision already exists as “fundamentally a lie”.

Cllr Sanders told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that he could not verify the claims shared with him and maintained his position based on the information available to him.

A Portsmouth City Council spokesperson reaffirmed that the supported living homes are considered when assessing new HMO applications.