Agenda item - BH2013/02747 - 5 Steine Street, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Change of use from nightclub (Sui Generis) to 7 unit student accommodation (Sui Generis) incorporating alterations to fenestration and installation of railings to glazed floor panel lightwell.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Change of use from nightclub (Sui Generis) to 7 unit student accommodation (Sui Generis) incorporating alterations to fenestration and installation of railings to glazed floor panel lightwell.

(1)                   The Senior Team Planner, Kate Brocklebank, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. Attention was drawn to matters on the Late List, and it was noted that two additional letters had been submitted from a language school intending to occupy the accommodation, and local resident in support. The property had last been in use as a nightclub, and was set over three floors; permission was sought for seven bedroom student accommodation with a communal dining and living space on the basement floor. There would be changes to some of the fenestration and the creation of a lightwell. Whilst the principle of the accommodation was acceptable it was felt that the standard was not acceptable. For the reasons outlined in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mr Pierre Dowsett spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant. He stated the application had support from the local community due to the history of problems associated with the previous use of the building. There would be high level fixed windows to allow light to come into the basement rooms, and it was noted that each room had its own en-suite, but this had not been taken into account when calculating the size of each room. As there was no policy in relation to minimum room size it was felt that the view of the Case Officer was subjective, and the HMOs standards should be relied upon. The applicant considered the accommodation to acceptable, and they would provide needed student accommodation for the city.

Questions for Officers

(3)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Hyde that the size of the rooms exceeding the HMO standards, but it was noted that HMO legislation was separate to planning permission; furthermore the HMO only gave a minimum size and did not consider issues such as daylight and other planning matters. The combination of issues such as the lack of outlook for the communal area; very small rooms and no amenity space had lead Officers to the view that they could not support the application.

(4)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Cox that if granted it would not be possible to attach a condition restricting the occupation to students only; as there would be no planning grounds to do this.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(5)                   Councillor Duncan noted that this site was located in his ward, and there had been problems with the previous use as a nightclub. He stated the proposals would be a major step forward and help to improve the situation for local residents.

(6)                   Councillor Davey stated he sympathised with the views of residents, but could not support such unsuitable accommodation. Councillor Randall echoed these comments and noted that the bedroom sizes were ‘not good.’

(7)                   Councillor Hyde noted the local support, and stated that individuals would still be able to make a personal decision about whether to live there.

(8)                   Councillor Gilbey stated that she understood the resident’s concerns, but felt that permission shouldn’t be granted simply because this use was preferable to the previous.

(9)                   Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that he was of the view the Planning Authority needed minimal space standards, and he hoped to progress this. He agreed that the scheme would be better than the previous use, but felt the proposal was of inadequate standard.

(10)               A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 7 to 3 with 2 abstentions.

92.7       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 11 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

Reason for Refusal:

              i.           The proposed internal accommodation, including a basement level communal room with little natural light and very limited outlook, a number of small bedrooms, and rooms to the rear of the property reliant on a lightwell which would provide limited natural light and poor quality outlook, would not be of an acceptable standard. The proposed development would not provide a suitable standard of accommodation, which would be to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers and would be contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives:

              i.           In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.