Agenda item - BH2016/01847 - 51 Plymouth Avenue, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use from three bedroom single dwelling (C3) to three bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Moulsecoomb and Bevendean

              Change of use from three bedroom single dwelling (C3) to three bedroom small house in multiple occupation.

(1)             The Planning Major Applications, Paul Vidler, gave a presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings, floor plans and photographs detailing the scheme. It was noted that the site related to a two storey semi-detached property on the south western side of Plymouth Avenue. The main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the change of use, impact on neighbouring amenity the standard of accommodation which the use would provide and transport issues.

(2)          The Planning Manager, Major Applications, Paul Vidler, referred to late representations which had been received objecting on the ground that the proposal would be contrary to the 10% threshold set out in City Plan Policy CP21. He explained that the proposal complied with the threshold and that this was addressed in the report and that the proposal was acceptable in principle at that location and accorded with the Council’s emerging policy on HMO’s.

(3)          The development would not result in significant harm to neighbouring amenity and would not create a harmful demand for travel; approval was therefore recommended.

Public Speakers

(4)          Mr Cager and Ms Game spoke as local residents setting out their objections to the scheme. The proliferation of HMO’s in their area was having  a significantly detrimental impact and was changing the demographic of the area, from one essentially of family homes and was impacting negatively on residents, in terms of their local shops and facilities on jobs and on local schools where the number of pupils on roll was dropping. Residents had been vocal in raising these concerns at Local Action Team (LAT) meetings and felt that their very real concerns had been unheeded. A petition was being prepared for consideration by Full Council requesting this issue be addressed city wide. It was anticipated this would attract a large number of signatures.

(5)          Councillor Marsh spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections and those of her fellow Ward Councillors. Across her Ward as a whole there were some 800 HMO’s with a huge impact for residents which had been dismissed. As well as changing the character of the area and the impact that had for residents, there were also issues around noise disturbance and the amount of refuse generated. A firm which specialised in buying up family houses and converting them into student accommodation had bought up a number of houses, a trend which appeared to be continuing. This gave rise to particular problems in her area, but was also creating problems in other parts of the city and formed part of a “bigger” picture. The recent Article 4 Direction measures appeared to have come too late to stem this issue in her ward and this matter was one of grave concern.

Questions of Officers

(6)          Councillor Gilbey requested confirmation of the number of HMOs in the immediate area as the number of these seemed to be very high. Councillor Allen stated that whilst acknowledging that this use might be acceptable in terms of its distance from the nearest HMO, it would have been useful to have an idea of the number within the area/ward overall as clearly that formed part of a bigger picture.

(7)          Councillor Russell-Moyle sought clarification of the manner in which HMO’s were calculated and were included and whether the pressure on local amenities created due to those who were only in residence for part of the year were subject to analysis and could be taken account of. Also, that HMO’s (particularly those occupied by students), tended to have a higher turnover rate than other types of rented accommodation. The Planning Manager, Major Applications, explained that it was very difficult to assess this on a case by case basis and that it would be very difficult to sustain refusal on those grounds. Policy CP21 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One specifically addressed the issue of changes of use to either class C4 a mixed C3/C4 use or to a sui generis House in Multiple Occupation, this application did not fall contrary to that.

(8)          Councillor Gilbey requested clarification of the factors which were likely to be taken account of by the Planning Inspectorate should the Committee be minded to refuse the application. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, explained that the Inspector would be mindful of recently adopted Local Planning Policy, as in principle this location accorded with the Council’s policy on HMO’s and had not been identified as having a detrimental impact on amenity it was unlikely that refusal would be successful at appeal and likely that the applicant could make a successful request for award of costs.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)          Councillor Hyde stated that she had every sympathy with the concerns expressed and was very uncomfortable about supporting this application, considering that an urgent review of the measures which could be put into place to address this issue was needed. Regrettably, however, in view of the provisions of CP21 and the advice given she felt obliged to accept the recommendation to grant.

(10)       Councillor Janio was in agreement that this matter needed to be looked at particularly as there appeared to cross party recognition that this was a problem which needed to be addressed.

(11)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, noted all that had been said and shared the concerns expressed but stated that they fell outside the remit of Planning Committee. She was aware that a Working Group had been set up tasked with looking into this issue and how it could best be addressed.

(12)       Councillor Miller stated that HMOs could be occupied by those other than students, but agreed that the Committee’s hands were tied, also that existing policies needed urgent review. Currently the policy was one step behind what was happening across the city and it needed to be one step ahead. He hoped that a petition to Full Council would add impetus to that. Councillor Miller asked what the status of the application would be if all Members of the Committee were minded to abstain. The Legal Adviser to the Committee and Democratic Services Officer conferred and were of the view that the outcome of such a vote would be a deemed refusal.

(13)       Councillor Moonan stated that she considered her hands were tied and that the current situation in respect of HMOs did not reflect where her heart lay. She was aware of the existence of the Working Group which was looking at the number and location of HMOs as a matter of priority and wanted all present to be aware of that.

(14)       Councillor Littman concurred with all that had been said stating that he was very unhappy with the situation. Article 4 Directions would assist some wards but this remained a problem elsewhere.

(15)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she was not happy that family homes were being lost due to their conversion into HMOs considering that it should be possible for exceptions to policy to be made.

(16)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that for him it was very much an issue of head and heart, considering that urgent work was needed to address existing policy in relation to HMOs. He could not support the Officer recommendation and would be voting that the application be refused.

(17)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 5 to 2 with 5 abstentions Members voted that planning permission be granted.

44.5       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 and to the amendments set out below.

              Conditions 1), 2) and 3) to be renumbered to 2), 3) and 4;

              Amendment to Condition 4 – to read:

              4) The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the proposed layout detailed in drawing no.1502/CU01 received on 20 May 2016 and shall be retained as such thereafter. The ground floor rooms annotated as living room, kitchen and utility room as set out on drawing no. 1502/CU01 shall be retained as communal space and none of these rooms shall be used as bedrooms at any time.

              Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of accommodation for occupiers and to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan;

              Additional Condition 5 – to limit number of occupants taking into account the size of the bedrooms:

              5) The development hereby approved shall only be occupied by a maximum of four persons.

              Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers and to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

              Whilst the communal areas are considered appropriate for up to 4 occupants if the property were further extended above this occupancy level it is not considered that an adequate level of accommodation would be provided. As such this condition is considered necessary.