Agenda item - BH2014/01429 - 19 Hollingbury Park Avenue, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use from residential dwelling (C3) to six bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4). (Part retrospective).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Change of use from residential dwelling (C3) to six bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4). (Part retrospective).

(1)             The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The property was authorised for use as a family home, but was currently operating as 7-bedroom unauthorised HMO. The application sought permission for the change of use to become a 6-bedroom HMO. The considerations related to the principle of the change of use; amenity; the standard of accommodation; transport matters and sustainability. The property was also caught by policy CP21 in the draft City Plan, and the mapping exercise had been undertaken showing 5.1% to be in use as HMOs. Objections from neighbours related to the proposed use and intensification. Overall the standard of accommodation was acceptable, and the change of use was acceptable in this location. The cycle parking would be confirmed through condition, and the recommended condition that work should start in three years was withdrawn as the application was retrospective. For the reasons set out in the report for the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(1)             Councillor Lepper spoke in objection to the application in her capacity as local Ward Councillor and local resident, and stated that residents in the area wished for the application to be refused, but noted that policy was clear on these types of application. The report noted that some of the room sizes were quite small. Since the house had been operating as an HMO there had been complaints in relation to noise and anti-social behaviour; these had been followed up with the letting agent. There was concern that despite the application the property would continue to operate as an unauthorised 7-bedroom HMO, and it was requested that this be properly enforced.

Questions for Officers

(2)             In response to Councillor Hamilton it was confirmed that the Local Planning Authority did not have a minimum standard for room size; there was a separate regime for HMO licensing, but this was not a consideration before the Committee.

(3)             In response to Councillor Phillips the Council’s enforcement powers were highlighted.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(4)             Councillor Randall felt the application would lead to overcrowding, and was concerned this area would become the next part of the city to be targeted by student landlords – he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(5)             Councillor Wells felt this was too much in such a small space, and felt the property would be better suited to being a 5-bedroom dwelling; for these reasons he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(6)             Councillor Cox noted that until there was more purpose built student accommodation in the city this type of property would be needed for students to live in.

(7)             Councillor Gilbey noted she could not support the application as it had limited amenity space.

(8)             Councillor Jones noted he could not support the Officer recommendation.

(9)             Councillor Littman noted the standard of the accommodation was poor, and he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(10)          A vote was taken of the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that permission be granted was not carried on a vote of 10 against with 2 abstentions. Councillor Jones proposed reasons to refuse the application, and these were seconded by Councillor Littman. A short recess was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Jones, Councillor Littman, the Planning Manager (Major Projects); the Planning Manager (Applications) and the Senior Solicitor to draft the reasons in full; these reasons were then read to the Committee and it was agreed they were representative of those put forward in the debate. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors: Jones, Hyde, Carden, Randall, Gilbey, Hamilton, Littman, Phillips, K. Norman and Wells voted that permission be refused and Councillor Mac Cafferty abstained from the vote. Note: Councillor Cox left the meeting before the recorded vote took place.

151.6    RESOLVED ­– That the Committee has considered the Officer recommendation and the reasons for it, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

i.                 The proposed development by reason of the cramped and limited size of bedrooms, particularly at second floor level, represents an inadequate standard of accommodation for occupiers. In addition, the shared facilities provided will be under significant pressure because of the number of individual occupiers. Accordingly the proposed development is contrary to Policy QD 27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.