Agenda item - BH2016/02810- 57 Hornby Road, 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 & Bevendean

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

(1)             It was noted that that determination of this application had been deferred at the previous meeting of the Committee in order provide further information in respect of space standards. It was also noted that the proposed small house in multiple occupation would have 4 bedrooms.

(2)             The Principal Planning Officer, gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to floor plans, photographs and site plans. It was explained that the main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the change of use, impact upon neighbouring amenity, the standard of accommodation which that use would provide, transport issues and impact on the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area. A mapping exercise had been undertaken based on the existing percentage of neighbouring properties in HMO use, this was less than 10% and the proposed change of use would therefore be in accordance with Policy CP21 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan, Part One. The accommodation would provide (4 bedroomed accommodation) for unrelated individuals who would share basic amenities including a kitchen and bathrooms. Issues raised in relation to space standards at the previous meeting had been researched and the standard of accommodation provided was considered acceptable.

(3)             The layout would provide a kitchen, separate lounge/diner and double bedroom, utility room and shower room to the ground floor; three further bedrooms and bathroom to the first floor. There was also a large rear garden. The bedrooms provided were considered to be of an adequate size with good circulation space and levels of natural light and outlook.

Public Speakers

(4)             Councillor Yates spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor detailing his objections to the application. Councillor Yates stated that in his view and that of his ward colleague, Councillor Marsh, the impact of this HMO on the surrounding residents, community and properties could be significant There was potential for noise and other environmental disturbance including waste management issues and inadequate provision of parking with a consequential impact to on street parking with impact on community resources such as schools and health facilities due to the loss of family accommodation. Having spoken in respect of the application, Councillor Yates withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the debate or decision making process.

(5)             Mrs Bradley, the applicant, spoke in support of her application. Mrs Bradley explained that she lived in the area herself, knew the area very well would ensure that the property was maintained in good order and did not give rise to nuisance or unneighbourly behaviour. This housing unit was small and would have no more inhabitants than if in use as a family house, nor would it generate any additional vehicle movements, nor give rise to problems in the collection or storage of waste.

Questions for Officers

(6)          Councillor Morris sought confirmation regarding the size of the double bedroom and enquired why the applicant had not been pressed to provide a larger communal space. It was explained that overall given the size of the accommodation this was considered acceptable.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)          Councillor Morris expressed concern that the proposed accommodation did not meet preferred space standards, also considering it disappointing that the application was retrospective. He considered it was important to note that shared accommodation of this type could attract young single professional people, as well as students.

(8)          Councillor Russell-Moyle stated that whilst he considered the application acceptable in this instance he was concerned that licensing and planning policy was not consistent and that this needed to be addressed. The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that if licensing standards had been met that was a separate regime to planning.

(9)          Councillors Wares and Littman considered it regrettable that the accommodation standards had not been met but considered that there were insufficient grounds on which to refuse the application. Councillor Littman referred to the number of letters of objection lodged by neighbouring residents which indicated the level of local concern about the number of HMOs.

(10)       Councillor Janio concurred stating that whilst noting the concerns voiced he did not consider that they constituted grounds for refusal. Councillor Hyde concurred in that view.

(11)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that on balance he considered that application to be acceptable.

(12)       A vote was taken and the 9 Members present when the vote was taken voted by 8 to 1 that planning permission be granted.

96.5       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the following Conditions and Informatives set out in the report.

Note: Councillors Mac Cafferty, Miller and Yates were not present at the meeting during the debate nor when the vote was taken in respect of the above application.