Agenda item - BH2016/01740 - 4 Plymouth Avenue, Brighton - Full Planning

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

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected – Moulsecoomb &  Bevendean

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

Officer Presentation

1)               The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The Officer noted that a letter of objection had been received from Councillor Yates that was circulated to Members in the late list, which incorrectly referred to it as a letter of support. It was explained that there were two properties licensed as HMOs within the radius, which was 7.4% and there was one property at the application stage for an HMO; therefore, if the permission for 4 Plymouth Avenue was granted, the next HMO would have the recommendation for refusal.

2)               The dwelling would comprise of three bedrooms on ground floor level and one bedroom with an en suite at lower ground level. It was recommended that the Committee condition the communal space to ensure it was retained. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

3)               Ms Howell spoke in her capacity as a local resident and a member of the Bevendean Local Action Team. She explained that 32 letters of objection had been received and within the 50 metre radius there was a licenced HMO and an unauthorised HMO that had already caused disturbance in the area. There was increased traffic in the area which had caused parking problems and wheelchairs and pushchairs had to walk in the road due to cars parking on the pavement. She added that the traffic statistics in the report were from five years ago and the problems had got worse since then. The loss of family homes were having detrimental effects on the area which had resulted in the closure of a doctor’s surgery, the youth centre reducing their hours and was impacting on the schools.

4)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald Ms Howell confirmed that there was not any off street parking.

5)               Councillor Marsh spoke in her capacity as a Ward Councillor and explained that the heart of Bevendean community was being ruined and the HMOs in the area had caused the loss of the doctors surgery. An urgent review on the existing policy regarding HMOs was needed and this had support from other Councillors. She added that there had been a planning application granted for an HMO at 31 Plymouth Avenue and this was not displayed on the map in the report.

6)               In response to Councillor Morris, Councillor Marsh agreed that increasing the radius, in relation to policy calculation, from 50 metres would help improve the situation.

7)               Mr Mackintosh spoke in his capacity as the applicant and thanked the Bevendean Local Action Team (LAT) for speaking. He noted that the views of the community could differ from the LAT and the Ward Councillor as residents with HMOs would have different views. He explained that he had listened to the concerns raised by local residents and made amendment to the application. He noted that it would not necessarily be students moving in, but could be young professionals that could not afford one bedroom properties. There was a need in the city for good quality, reasonably priced HMOs to help young individuals. He added that if the Members had attended a site visit, they would have had the opportunity to see that it was a positive application and would not increase parking problems in the area.

8)               In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle, Mr Mackintosh confirmed that the proposed third bedroom would be part of the existing living room.

Questions for Officers

9)               The Development and Transport Assessment Manager confirmed to Councillor Mac Cafferty that the traffic data in the report was the most up to date, and there would not be a significant difference in the area since the data was taken in 2011. Councillor Mac Cafferty requested that work be undertaken to determine the additional parking and traffic impacts HMOs were having.

10)            In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that restricting the number of occupants would prevent properties being extended after being granted planning permission. To extend the number of occupants the applicant would need to submit a new application and Officers would consider the impact this may have on local services.

11)            It was confirmed to Councillor Miller that the map highlighting the 50 metre radius of other registered HMOs from the property showed No. 1 Plymouth Avenue as just outside the radius.

12)            In response to Councillor Morris the Officer confirmed that if the applicant did not comply with the conditions, it would be a breach of the permission; however, the Committee could not condition an inspection of the property at a later date.

13)            In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle the Officer clarified that not all of the communal rooms needed to be retained; however, enough communal space should be secured.

14)            In response to Councillor Moonan it was confirmed that if the application were granted, the other application for an HMO under consideration in the area would be affected, and the Officer recommendation would likely be for refusal as the concentration in a 50 metre radius would be over 10%.

Debate and Decision Making Process

15)            Councillor Miller noted that a review of the HMO section in the City Plan was needed immediately. He added that he would abstain from the vote on the application.

16)            Councillor Allen noted that HMOs were not necessarily for students; however, there was evidence that Bevendean was under strain from HMOs and agreed with Councillor Miller that the policy needed to be looked at. He noted that he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

17)            Councillor Russell-Moyle stated that it was important for Members to arrange site visits to HMOs and see the area and the inside of the properties. He noted that HMOs were important; however, they needed to be in an appropriate location. He would therefore be abstaining from voting on the application. The Chair commented that the internal layout was not something that could be controlled and explained that she was not of the view that having site visits was always necessary, as the Council had an updated City Plan that was agreed in March 2016.

18)            Councillor Littman explained that he and Councillor Mac Cafferty were unhappy with the number of HMOs in the Bevendean area. He stated that the City Plan had set how the calculation was done in relation to the acceptable density for HMOs, and the Committee should not refuse the application as it could cost the Council money were the Council to lose an appeal against the decision.

19)            Councillor Moonan noted that she would be supporting the Officer recommendation as a refusal would likely be overturned at appeal.

20)            Councillor Miller proposed a condition to remove permitted development rights to prevent the owner further extended the property. Councillor Moonan seconded the proposal, this was carried.

21)            A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee grant planning permission was carried with 4 votes in support, 2 against and 6 abstentions.

56.8       RESOLVED – That the Committee resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informative set out in section 1 of the report and the additional condition set out below:

Additional condition 6:

No extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwellinghouse as provided for within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B and C of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) other than that expressly authorised by this permission shall be carried out without planning permission obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority considers that further development could cause detriment to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties due to the intensification of the use that would occur as a result and for this reason would wish to control any future development to comply with policies QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.