Agenda item - BH2016/05803 - 22 Freshfield Street, Brighton - Full Planning

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

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Queen’s Park

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

Officer Presentation

1)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. He noted that the location plan in the report pack was incorrect and the property highlighted was the neighbouring site.

2)               He explained that the house had been sub-divided under a previous application. Policy CP21 limited the amount of HMOs within the city and for not have more than 10% of HMO properties being in a 50m radius. There was one existing HMO within the radius of the proposed site; therefore, the change of use was deemed acceptable. The communal space on the ground floor was acceptable and there was a garden at the rear of the property. The rooms were mid conversion and the loft room had a sloped roof; however, this had sufficient head space when standing.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

3)               Mr Michael Jones spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as local resident. He noted that he was speaking on behalf of the local residents, including the residents at the neighbouring properties. He believed that the application has mislead the local residents as the applicant had initially informed them that the property would be converted into two units. The website of the agent stated that they specialised in HMOs and therefore; the residents believed this was their initial intention. The property was a three bedroom family house in a residential area near a school and would be unsuitable for an HMO as there would be noise nuisance and overlooking into the neighbouring properties. He noted that the residents would not have objected to an application for two, three or four units; however, the property was not suitable for six units due to its size and the lack of sound proofing.

4)               In response to the Chair Mr Jones clarified that not all of the local residents were consulted. The Officer explained that the adjoining neighbours and residents directly opposite the property would be notified and the information would be published online.

5)               In response to Councillor Morris Mr Jones stated that the neighbours were consulted on the application being for two units rather than six. The Officer clarified that there was a previous application to separate the property into two units and then a second application was submitted for six units. The original floor plans were consulted on with the residents; however, the new floor plans were not re-consulted on because they were minor amendments to the internal layout, making the communal living area larger.

6)               Mr Anthony Foster spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant and explained that the property had previously been agreed for C34 use, suitable for up to six occupants. He noted that the bedrooms would vary in size and were in excess of the standard policy. It would not necessarily be occupied by students and due to the location of the property; it was likely to offer a home for young professionals. The application had been designed to ensure that the amenity of the residents living in the neighbouring properties was protected. The site would be managed and maintain well and if the Committee felt necessary the applicant welcomed a site management plan. Mr Foster added that the Planning Policy had been adopted to protect the neighbouring amenities and character of the local area and the application is in accordance with this policy.

Questions for Officers

7)               In response to Councillor Morris the Officer explained that if the property was to be converted back to two dwellings, this would be likely to require planning permission.

8)               In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle the Officer clarified that policy CP21 ensured that there would be no more than 10 per cent of dwellings within a radius of 50 metres would be HMOs. The Officers monitored live applications when calculating these figures.

9)               In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle the Officer noted that the head height should be a minimum of 1.5 meters. It was also clarified that the layout submitted by the applicant was indicative and depending on the residents chosen furniture it could mean that the layout would be different. The application was deemed acceptable by the Planning Officers due to the size of the rooms, communal space and the large rear garden.

10)            In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that the layouts of the neighbouring properties had not been sought; however, there was an assumption that the majority of properties would have communal areas on a ground floor level and bedrooms on the upper stories.

11)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was noted that the national minimum bedroom size was 7.5sqm and this would exclude en-suite bathrooms.

12)            In response to Councillor Yates the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that there was not another potential location for cycle parking on site.

13)            In response to Councillor Miller it was confirmed that the room size was measured from wall to wall.

Debate and Decision Making Process

14)            Councillor Morris noted that he was concerned about the application. He explained that the location for the cycle parking was not ideal as it was at the rear of the property with step access and the planning policy noted that cycle parking should have easy access. He added that he had concern for the amenity space provided.

15)            Councillor Miller explained that he did not like the design of the application and had concern for the size of the community spaces and the head height in the attic room. He noted that it was a traditional three bedroom house that was being converted into a two bedroom flat and a six bed HMO and this was not acceptable.

16)            Councillor Yates agreed with Councillor Miller and noted that there could be more unregistered HMOs in the area which would result in the 50 metre radius exceeding 10 per cent.

17)            Councillor Russell-Moyle noted that he had concerns for overcrowding within the property and would not be supporting the Officers recommendation.

18)            Councillor Russell-Moyle proposed that the item was deferred to receive further information regarding the head height in the attic room and conditioning the management plans.

138.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee agreed to defer the item to receive further information.