Five-storey 'HMO plus' scheme rejected by Portsmouth planners
Proposed co-living scheme refused following nearly 100 objections over scale, design and privacy
Plans for a five-storey “HMO plus” development with 20 bedrooms have been refused by Portsmouth City Council planners.
The council’s planning committee met yesterday to determine the application for a five-storey “co-living” development at 241-243 Milton Road.
The proposal was recommended for refusal after attracting almost 100 objections.
The scheme proposed shared kitchens and dining areas, communal indoor and outdoor amenity space, a laundry room, cycle storage, and facilities for refuse and recycling.
The building would be arranged across five floors, with a reception area and two bedrooms on the ground floor, five bedrooms on each of the first three upper floors, and three on the fourth floor.
The applicants, speaking to the committee, said the “derelict site” had been a “haven for ASB”, with “squatters” and “a lot of criminal activity”.
They said the application would redevelop a brownfield site, address Portsmouth’s housing need, provide a “diverse and accessible housing option” and deliver a car-free development with no on-street parking.
Councillor Steve Pitt, speaking on behalf of the Milton Neighbourhood Forum, said the forum had criticised the “limitations in terms of capacity resulting in flaws in design and layout which would cause an unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring residential properties”.
He added that the scale and massing of the building were the primary concerns.
The local ward councillor said the development was “not a co-living development” but rather a “very good House in Multiple Occupation (HMO)”, as co-living developments are normally larger, with more focus on communal facilities and services.
“This is kind of a bit HMO plus,” he added.
Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson agreed that “it’s good to see a scheme come forward for a site that’s been derelict for a while”, highlighting its previous use as a boxing gym and its “dodgy history when it used to be a cannabis factory”.
He proposed refusing the application, which was unanimously supported.