Agenda item - BH2015/01562 - 70 Barnett Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use from four bedroom single dwelling (C3) into five bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

              Change of use from four bedroom single dwelling (C3) into five bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4)

(1)             The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and floor plans. It was noted that consideration of the application had been deferred from consideration at the Committee meetings held on 26 August 2015 and 17 February 2016 in order to allow for investigation into alleged unauthorised use of 55, 59 and 61 Barnett Road as Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s). Those investigations had now taken place and it had been established that these properties were not in use as HMO’s but as C3 dwelling houses.

(2)          The application sought permission for change of use from dwelling house (C3) to a smaller HMO (C4). Planning Permission was required because the site was located in a ward where an Article 4 Direction applied, restricting the usually permitted change of use between classes C3 and C4. The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of development; impact on neighbouring amenity and the impact on sustainable transport. It was not considered in view of the small number of HMO’s within a 50 metre radius of the site that this change would result in an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity. Comments received from neighbours regarding noise, or other amenity issues such as extra litter were noted; should noise for example become an issue in future, as with any residential properties including single dwellings, powers under Environmental Health legislation could be invoked to investigate any potential noise nuisance. For ease of reference slides were shown setting out the wording in relation to HMO’s as it appeared in the newly adopted City Plan which set out policy guidance in respect of this issue and constituted a relevant planning consideration.

(3)          It was considered that the proposed change of use was acceptable in principle and would not have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring amenity or the highway network and approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(4)          Councillor Hill spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposed scheme. Notwithstanding the officer recommendation and investigations carried out, residents were very concerned that there were already a number of HMO’s in the area albeit that they were not necessarily on the HMO register. A resident had advised her of another property in use only that day. It was important to seek to ensure that there was not a proliferation of this use within a residential area.

(5)          A letter was read out on behalf of Mr Bolingbroke the applicant (who was unable to be present) in support of his application.

            Questions for Officers

(6)          Councillor Barradell enquired regarding the enquiries that had been made to establish whether or not these properties were in use as HMO’s. Also, how the percentage of these within a given area was assessed as from her calculations it appeared that the if approved this use would exceed the 10% thresh-hold. Councillor Barradell also enquired regarding the number of noise complaints, if any which had been received in respect of this property and in relation to the area generally. Councillor Gilbey also sought clarification of how the percentage figure for an area was arrived at.

(7)          It was explained that the Policy gave guidance in relation to cumulative impact and that this impact fell within that threshold. Whilst there was no information regarding whether there had been/the number of noise complaints, this would not be a planning consideration per se, as noise could be generated other than via HMO’s and could be addressed through environmental health legislation. Enquiries undertaken followed the prescribed arrangements which included checking extant planning applications for HMO use, whether the property was licensed as an HMO and whether it was occupied by students and therefore exempt from Council Tax, also by visits to the property and making enquiries of neighbours.

(8)          Councillor Morris enquired whether the applicant lived at the property and it was confirmed that he did not and the date at which the family previously in residence had moved out. Councillor Morris also referred to the fact that the application was retrospective and enquired whether the number of people coming and going from the property had indicated an HMO use. It was confirmed that the applicant was not resident at the property and that retrospective applications were considered using the same criteria as any other application. The other issues raised were not germane planning considerations.

(9)          Councillor Wealls also sought further information regarding investigations carried out to ascertain whether or not the other properties cited by residents were operating as HMOs. It was explained that in this instance access had been gained to one of the properties and in the case of the others information from neighbours and that the other checks carried out and referred to had not provided any evidence that these properties were operating as HMOs.

(10)       Councillor Page referred to the recent allegation received by Councillor Hill stating that if that property was found to be in use as an HMO that the threshold for the area would then be exceeded and enquiring whether further interim investigations could be carried out. The Chair stated that it would not be appropriate to further delay consideration of this application, to do so could result in an appeal being lodged for non-determination. Any other alleged use could be investigated on the basis of information provided and needed to be dealt with separately.

(11)       Councillor O’Quinn sought clarification regarding the investigations undertaken as several different addresses in the area had been mentioned in addition to those referred to in the officer report.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(12)       Councillor Barradell stated that she did not consider that the investigations carried out had been sufficiently thorough and was concerned that more in depth investigations should have been undertaken. Councillor Wealls echoed those views.

(13)       Councillor Hamilton considered that in addition to the means of information gathering referred to considering that it would also be appropriate to check whether residents were in receipt of housing benefit and the Electoral Register as if number of apparently unrelated individuals were registered that could indicate that a property was operating as an HMO. A plan indicating the location of other HMOs within the vicinity would also have been helpful.

(14)       Councillor Page stated that he was very concerned that there seemed to be a number of instances of HMO use in the vicinity, also citing the number of letters of objection from residents who were clearly very concerned about this issue. As each application needed to be considered on its merits he was concerned that their concerns should be taken account of. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Alison Gatherer confirmed that whilst each application needed to be considered on its merits, the Policy gave guidance and also needed to be given due weight. The Policy needed to be applied consistently across the city and in this instance concerns raised had been investigated in line with the agreed process and had not indicated that the other potential HMOs cited were in use as such.

(15)       Councillor C Theobald stated that in her view this use would give rise to more noise and disturbance in an area where there were already a number of HMOs would therefore be unneighbourly and she would not therefore support it. Councillor Miller concurred in that view.

(16)       Councillor Morris stated that in his view approval of this application would take the number of HMOs above the agreed threshold and he would not therefore support it.

(17)       Councillor Page concurred stating that in his view from the information provided there were enough HMOs operating in the area and sufficient justification for another had not been made.

(18)       Councillor Wares stated that in his view the Policy was clear and it was also clear that the policy had been adhered to and the appropriate investigations made. It was important to apply the policy consistently across the city and to encourage landlords to apply through the planning process. If that was not the case it could result in a further proliferation of unregulated and uncontrolled premises.

(19)       Councillor Mac Cafferty was in agreement. Issues had been raised regarding the depth of investigations carried out, but this application had been processed and investigations carried out consistent with the policy and currently agreed procedures and would expose the authority to risk in the event of an appeal being lodged. It would be hard to provide sustainable reasons for refusal.

(20)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 3 with 2 Abstentions planning permission was granted.

166.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of 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.