# 19 Southbourne Grove, Southend-on-Sea

- **Decision:** allowed, 15 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Simms
- **Authority:** Southend-on-Sea (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008643
- **Application reference:** 26/00245/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of dwellinghouse to 7-bed sui generis HMO with cycle and refuse stores (part retrospective)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4(1), TR6(4), HO1, HO7
- **Development plan policies:** Southend Core Strategy 2007 KP2, CP4, CP8, Development Management Document 2015 DM1, DM3, DM8, DM15
- **Main issues:** character, family housing, parking, access and refuse
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, hmo, fallback, non-determination, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A 7-bed HMO in Southend, where a 6-person HMO was already certified lawful, was allowed on a non-determination appeal. The inspector found a conflict with the local parking policy (DM15), because on-street demand already exceeds supply. But this was a living-conditions harm, not a TR6(4) safety or "severe" network impact. It did not substantially outweigh the extra housing capacity under S4. The family-housing objection failed for want of evidence, even though HO1 lists families with children.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The parties were invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework and HDT (DL ¶4).
- **Character.** The 6-person C4 fallback makes one more occupant "marginal" (DL ¶9).
- **Family homes.** "Policy HO1 of the Framework includes families with children ... I have no evidence of a shortage of family homes in this city, that they are needed more than HMOs or that a less balanced or sustainable community results. Consequently, I find no harm" (DL ¶13-14).
- **Parking: plan CONFLICT.** "the development adds parking pressure in a location where demand exceeds supply and so is likely to affect nearby living conditions" (DL ¶17, 19).

## Planning balance
"Policy S4 ... requires development within settlements to be approved unless the benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects, such as a failure to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused ... the adverse effects of inadequate parking on living conditions, rather than on safety, would not have the severe adverse impact on the transport network necessary to warrant refusal under Policy TR6 ... and do not substantially outweigh the benefits of greater housing capacity" (DL ¶24-25). Material considerations, in particular the Framework, outweighed the plan conflict (DL ¶29).

## What made the difference
The lawful 6-bed fallback, and the classification of the parking harm as amenity-only. Once TR6(4)'s refusal threshold was not reached, nothing in the Framework "should be refused" list was engaged. S4 then overrode the DM15 conflict.

## Transferable points
- Within settlements, parking stress that affects amenity but not safety does not engage TR6(4), and S4 can override a local parking-standard conflict (DL ¶25, 29).
- An HO1 family-housing argument needs evidence of local shortage. Its mere listing in HO1 is not harm (DL ¶14). Compare PINS-6011088 and PINS-6010946, where evidence existed.
- A certified smaller-HMO fallback makes incremental intensification marginal (DL ¶9).

## Policy findings
- **S4(1): pass.** parking harm to living conditions does not substantially outweigh greater housing capacity; approved despite DM15 plan conflict (DL 24-25, 29)
- **TR6(4): pass.** inadequate parking affects living conditions rather than safety and is not a severe network impact (DL 15-17, 25)
- **HO1: neutral.** families with children listed in HO1, but no evidence of a local shortage of family homes or that they are needed more than HMOs (DL 13-14)

## Key facts
- Lawful fallback of a 6-person C4 HMO (certificate March 2026); appeal adds one occupant (DL 3, 9)
- Non-determination; council would have approved (DL 2)
- Street heavily parked; bus stops about 120m away (DL 15-16)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008643
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/51140b23-066c-48c9-8939-92c2ce444f37

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008643.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.