17-19 Parkstone Road, Poole

Decision

dismissed, 24 August 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: B Plenty

Authority

Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (South West)

Appeal reference

6007128

Application reference

P/25/05261/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Five-storey block of 20 HMO rooms in rear car park behind consented HMO (counted as 4 dwellings)

Homes

4

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.55 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4(1), L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii), N6(1)(a)(i)

Development plan policies

Poole Local Plan 2018 PP27, PP28, PP32, PP35, PP39

Main issues

character; neighbour outlook; future occupiers; highway; habitats

Summary

A five-storey, 20-room HMO block in an open rear car park in Poole town centre was dismissed. The Inspector ran the S4 test explicitly, with HO7 substantial weight and a 2.55-year supply. The benefits were "substantially outweighed" by conflict with L2(1)(d)(i) (street scene) and L2(1)(d)(ii) (living standards), and by an unsecured habitats contribution under N6(1)(a)(i).

Issues and findings

• Character. "due to its scale and prominence the proposal would be out of character with surrounding development and erode the existing sense of spaciousness" (DL ¶8).
• Living conditions. The block "would appear to loom over the rear elevation" of the HMO 12 m away (DL ¶13). Ground-floor units would suffer "substantial noise and disturbance through users accessing the cycle stands" (DL ¶17).
• Habitats. A completed financial obligation form is not a legal mechanism: "the financial form alone does not provide the required certainty" (DL ¶29).
• Highway: PASS. A pinch-point on the shared access gave only negligible risk (DL ¶23).

Planning balance

• HO7: "requires substantial weight to be given to the benefits of providing homes … especially pertinent in a district where the Council is not meeting its required 5-year supply … only 2.55 years" (DL ¶33).
• S4 quoted: "should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶34).
• "the proposal would not be consistent with the overall streetscene, in conflict with policy L2(1)(d)(i) … poor living standards … L2(1)(d)(ii) … adverse effects on the European sites would conflict with policy N6(1)(a)(i)" (DL ¶36).
• "the benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects … As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL ¶37).

What made the difference

The height and position of the block in an open backland court, and the lack of a legal mechanism for the SAMM payments. Even a heavy HO7 weight with a 2.55-year supply did not survive substantial harm to character and amenity.

Transferable points

• The L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) criteria are applied as adverse-effect tests within the S4 balance for intensification within settlements, not only as conditions for L2 substantial weight (DL ¶36).
• N6(1)(a)(i) failure (no secured habitats mitigation) is fed into the S4 balance as an adverse effect (DL ¶36).
• S4 can be failed even with 2.55 years' supply and HO7 substantial weight (DL ¶¶33–37).
• For HDT purposes a 20-bed HMO counts as 4 dwellings (DL ¶4).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Council counts the 20-bed HMO as 4 dwellings under HDT rulebook (DL 4)
• Approved two-storey rear building less harmful
• Poole Park within walking distance reduced weight to lack of on-site amenity space (DL 20)

Sources

• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)
• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.