Agenda item - BH2016/06305 - 152 Birdham Road, Brighton - Full Planning

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

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

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

1)               The Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application was for retrospective change of use from C3 to C4. In relation to Policy CP21 the mapping exercise had been undertaken, which highlighted three other HMOs – the density percentage was 9.6% and therefore did not breach CP21. The application was not considered likely to adversely impact neighbouring amenity, and was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)               Councillor Marsh spoke in objection to the application in her capacity as a local Ward Councillor. She highlighted the letter submitted by her colleague, Councillor Yates, noting that he stated permitted development rights should be removed if the Committee were minded to approve the application. She noted that the percentage was close to 10% threshold in the policy and expressed concern in relation to head height in the loft bedroom. The Committee were asked to refuse the application.

3)               Guiling Guo spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the applicant. She stated that she had taken advice before submitting the application, and she had been of the view that the concentration of HMOs would be below 10% in the area. She noted that she already had her HMO licence. Advice had been sought and the plans changed to make the scheme more acceptable; she was also happy to accept the removal of permitted development rights and there had been no objections from immediate neighbours.

Questions for Officers

4)               In response to Councillor Simson it was highlighted that there was no minimum requirement for the ratio of bathrooms to bedrooms.

5)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was confirmed that both the proposed bathrooms shown in the plans had only showers.

6)               In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle it was explained that the communal space in the scheme as applied for was larger than that shown in the plans before the work was undertaken.

7)               In response to Councillor Gilbey it was noted were the application to be refused based on the size of the loft space and an appeal lodged, the Planning Inspector would likely look to the decision of the Housing Department to grant the HMO licence, and potentially take direction from that regime having deemed it satisfactory. The height of the loft-room was also confirmed for Councillor Russell-Moyle.

8)               It was confirmed for Councillor Mac Cafferty that the Officer report already recommended the removal of permitted development rights.

Debate and Decision Making Process

9)               Councillor Simson highlighted her concern with the number of HMOs in the city, and she was also not satisfied with the size of the communal space.

10)            Councillor Littman noted that he sympathised with the position of the local Ward Councillors; however, he felt policy was clear on the matter and there was no reason to refuse the application.

11)            Councillor Russell-Moyle noted he would like to see more communal space; however, he welcomed the condition in relation to the removal of permitted development rights. He would support the Officer recommendation.

12)            Councillor C. Theobald noted there was a report being considered by the Economic Development & Culture Committee the following day that would look at issues raised by Members in relation to HMOs.

13)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be granted was carried by 9 votes in support and 2 abstentions.

121.5    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and resolves to GRANT permission for the reasons set out in the report.