Agenda item - BH2016/02229 - 34 Walmer Crescent, Brighton - Full Planning

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

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected - Moulsecoomb & Bevendean

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

Officer Presentation

1)               The Principle Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site had one bedroom on the ground floor and had three bedrooms on the first floor.  The property had permission granted for HMO use in 29 March 2016, permission was not sought for the change of use from four bedroom single dwelling to four bedroom small house in multiple occupation. There was a proposed condition detailed in the report that would secure the kitchen and lounge as communal use. The Officer recommendation was to grant as there were no HMOs in the 50 metre radius area. The application was recommendation for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)               Ms Howell spoke in her capacity as a local resident and a member of the Bevendean Local Action Team. She explained that there were currently problems with parking and traffic congestion which would be made worse if the application was agreed. She noted that over 800 family homes had been lost in the area and this had a significant impact on the schools. There was an HMO at 46 Walmer Crescent and an unlicensed HMO at 38 Walmer Crescent; therefore, the Members should consider the impact on residents in Bevendean and refuse the application.

3)               Councillor Marsh spoke in her capacity as a Ward Councillor and explained that it used to be unusual for Local Councillors to speak on behalf of residents at Planning Committee; however, a higher number of residents were contacting their Local Councillors with concerns regarding HMOs in their area. She explained the additional HMOs were causing: extra traffic in the area; parking problems; antisocial behaviour; and rubbish. Some residents found the HMOs in the Bevendean area distressing and it was destroying the peaceful area that residents often chose to live in, as it was away from the city centre. She explained that the area had approximately 800 licensed HMOs, which was 18% of the properties in the Bevendean area and therefore; the Planning Committee needed to consider the significant impact the additional HMOs would have on the long-term residents.

4)               Ms Simpson spoke in her capacity as the applicant and noted that she lived in Bevendean and cared about the community. She explained that she had previously intended for the property to be a four bedroom house, but the plans had not been submitted properly; therefore, this was the second application. She noted that no changes to the existing exterior were proposed and she had improved the house since living there. She believed that it was unfair to her as an applicant as she had followed the government procedures when applying for the HMO whereas she believed there was an unlicensed 7 bedroom HMO in the area that had not sought planning permission and; therefore, did not receive any objections.

5)               The applicant clarified that an extension had been built to increase the kitchen size; however, the original rooms on the ground floor had not changed in size.

6)               In response to Councillor Miller the applicant stated that the unlicensed HMO was a co-operative house at 38 Walmer Crescent and there had not been any disturbance from this property.

Debate and Decision Making Process

7)               The Planning Manager noted that the speakers had mentioned an HMO at 38 Walmer Crescent which would be in the 50 metre radius and a re-assessment of the numbers would have to be carried out which could change the Officers recommendation. She recommended to the Committee that the application was deferred to a future Planning Committee to allow this matter to be investigated further.

56.6       RESOLVED – That the Committee agreed to defer the application on a vote of 9 for with 1 abstention.

Note: Councillors Bennett and Littman were not present for the consideration and vote on the application.