Agenda item - BH2015/00481, 77 Grand Parade, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use from offices (B1) to holiday lets (Sui Generis). (Retrospective)

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Queens Park

Change of use from offices (B1) to holiday lets (Sui Generis). (Retrospective)

(1)             The Planning Applications Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application with reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site was located on the eastern side of Grand Parade on the junction with Edward Street. The premises were currently in use as an unauthorised holiday let, and the application sought permission for a change of use from offices to a holiday let (sui generis). The main considerations related to the principle of the use, impact on the conservation area, impact of neighbouring amenity, highways matters, parking and sustainability. Policy resisted the loss of office sites within the city unless they were redundant, and new hotels were favoured in the core hotel area of the city. This application followed a previous approval for a change of use to a guest house; however, not all the conditions had been discharged and the permission was therefore not implemented.

(2)             The current use had been operating for three years, and in this context the loss of the office use was considered acceptable. It was noted that the site was located outside of the core hotel area, and just outside of the central Brighton area. The principle of the tourist accommodation had been established, and the use accorded with policy. There were no external changes required and as such no impact on the conservation area. The amenity impact had already been assessed as acceptable as part of the guest house application; however, it was acknowledged that this type of holiday let had the potential to cause greater impact on amenity, but the Environmental Protection Team had not raised any objections. There was a condition attached in relation to the use of the outdoor rear yard to restrict use for emergencies only, and the application required the submission of a full management plan. For the reasons outlined in the report the application was recommended for approval.

              Questions for Officers

(3)             In response to Councillor Barradell the Planning Applications Manager explained that the Authority did not currently have details of refuse storage; whilst the Transport Team were recommending cycle storage in the rear year Officers were of the view that this was not appropriate due to amenity concerns.

(4)             In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the details of the split decision (BH2014/01790) in the relevant history section of the report were outlined.

(5)             The location of the dining room on the ground floor was confirmed for Councillor C. Theobald.

(6)             In response to Councillor Wares it was explained that the Local Planning Authority would follow up to make sure that all conditions were adhered to, and there would be a time limit in the consent for submission. It was also added that the Committee could add an additional recommendation that the application be referred to the Planning Enforcement Team for monitoring.

(7)             In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was explained that the previous permission in relation to the change of use to a guest house had submitted extensive marketing information to show the site was no longer viable for office use. As the site had been in operation for three years and the marketing information had already been submitted it was considered unnecessary to seek any further information. In response to a further query it was explained that a retrospective application was entirely lawful, but this was at the owners’ risk.

(8)             In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was clarified that there were conditions which could be attached in relation to noise concerns; there had been some noise complaints at the premises, but these had been closed without any statutory notices being issued.

(9)             In response to Councillor Robins Officers noted that they did not believe the site had ever been in use as a guest house as the permission was never fully implemented. Councillor Robins also raised the matter of a Brighton holiday rental association which had been a recommendation from a recent scrutiny panel; Officers noted that were not aware of any association, but did not believe this would be material to the application.

(10)          In response to Councillor Barradell it was confirmed that there was no formal mechanism to recharge enforcement costs as this work was met as part of the overall cost of the service; recharges could only be considered where the matter was being brought before a court; however, the costs of monitoring were not significant from a service perspective. In response to a further query it was clarified that the occupancy rate was between 1-34 people, and the applicant had submitted information that the average occupancy was 20 people.

(11)          In response to Councillor Barradell it was acknowledged that preventing access to the rear garden would displace noise issues from smokers to the front of the premises; however, this was further from residential properties and the traffic noise would lessen the impact.

(12)          In response to Councillor Hamilton it was explained that the occupancy rates and periods could be enforced by requesting booking records.

(13)          It was confirmed for Councillor Wares that if the Committee were minded to refuse the application the guest house permission could not be used as the permission had lapsed without being fully implemented. The use could revert back to offices, but the applicant would also have the right of appeal.

(14)          In response to Councillor Allen it was clarified that the management plan would contain information in relation to: length of occupancy; use of facilities; contact details; check in procedures and guest behaviour expectations – these were all considered fairly typical and appropriate for a management plans. Where nearby residents had concerns and complaints these could be referred to Environmental Protection.

(15)          In response to Councillor Littman it was explained that the Local Planning Authority often relied on residents to report breaches of conditions for monitoring. Officers would then have the power to serve a breach of condition notice; this could lead to enforcement or even a prosecution.

(16)          In response to Councillor Robins it was confirmed that fire safety was a building control matter and not a material consideration in relation to the application. It was also clarified that it was not illegal to operate without planning permission, but this was at the owners’ risk.

(17)          In response to concerns raised by Councillor Morris it was explained that the Committee needed to consider whether they were of the view the management plan was robust and could be used to enforce conditions; Officers would not recommend the application for approval if they were of the view this was not enforceable. The Planning & Building Control Applications Manager also added that the Committee could recommend that the application be minded to grant subject to the submission of a more robust management plan.

(18)          It was confirmed for the Chair that the premises was not suitable for permanent living accommodation due to the existing configuration. It was also confirmed that bookings could be on an individual or group basis.

(19)          It response to Councillor Barradell it was confirmed that there was no planning policy in relation to this type of holiday accommodation. The application would not set a precedent for other similar types of accommodation to operate for some time without the appropriate permission. Officers did not have information relating the number of enforcement investigations at this premises; however, it was confirmed that the application had come forward due to an enforcement investigation. It was also confirmed for Councillor Bennett that Officers did not have information relating to the involvement of community support officers.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(20)          Councillor Morris stated that holiday lets were a real problem in this area and he felt that the fire regulations could not be properly monitored; he asked that the Committee refuse the application.

(21)          Councillor Mac Cafferty noted the concerns raised by the Ward Councillors in relation to loss of amenity. He was not assured that the proposed use did not contradict the protection of amenity. He felt that proper policy was needed in relation to this type of holiday let. Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(22)          Councillor Morris stated he agreed with Councillor Mac Cafferty as local residents and business were affected by this type of scheme.

(23)          Councillor Barradell stated her view that there was information missing from the report, and noted she would have liked additional information on complaints. She was of the view that 34 people staying in this property would not be safe, and she found the decision difficult to take without fire safety information. She felt the scheme would set a precedent and she could not support the Officer recommendation.

(24)          Councillor Wares noted his concerns given the close proximity to residential properties. He felt the location was wholly inappropriate and was not confident that the applicant would comply with the permission.

(25)          Councillor C. Theobald noted her concerns in relation to the fire regulations; she noted the current operation was unsupervised and there was no contact number for nearby residents.

(26)          Councillor Allen stated his view that the enforcement of problems would be difficult due to the short-term stays of those letting the property.

(27)          Before the Committee moved to the vote the Planning & Building Control Applicants Manager confirmed that matters relating to fire regulations were not material to the application.

(28)          A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee grant permission was not a carried by a unanimous vote against. Councillor Mac Cafferty proposed reasons to refuse the application and these were seconded by Councillor Morris. A short recess was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Mac Cafferty, Councillor Morris, the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager; the Planning Applications Manager and the Senior Solicitor to draft the reasons for refusal in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they accurately reflected those put forward by Councillor Mac Cafferty. A recorded vote was then takes and Councillors; Gilbey, C. Theobald, Mac Cafferty, Barradell, Hamilton, Morris, Allen, Littman, Miller, and Wares voted that planning permission be refused.

18.2       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into account the Officer recommendation but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

i)             The development by reason of its intensity of use and scale of development in terms of numbers of guests would have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers contrary to policy QD27of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.

ii)            The proposed development is likely to result in a significant adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers  due to the prevailing number of existing holiday lets and guest houses within the vicinity of the site, contrary to policies QD27 and  SU10 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.

Note: Councillor Robins and Councillor Bennett left the meeting between the initial vote on the application and the recorded vote that followed.