# 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 (years):** 2.55
- **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
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, hmo, habitats-mitigation, l2-1-d-fail

## 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
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to homes meeting evidenced need; 2.55-year supply (DL 33)
- **TR3: benefit.** walkable to Poole town centre and bus routes (DL 35)
- **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** five storeys in open rear courtyard, not consistent with street scene (DL 8-12, 36)
- **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** looms 12 m from rear of existing HMO; ground-floor rooms overlook cycle stands (DL 13-21, 36)
- **N6(1)(a)(i): fail.** SAMM contributions only on a form, no legal mechanism; AA cannot conclude no adverse effect (DL 25-30, 36)
- **S4(1): fail.** benefits "substantially outweighed" by adverse effects (DL 34, 37)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c080e695-c64c-4ef9-a289-6692d60bf8b6
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007128

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007128.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.