Agenda item - BH2017/00201, 14 Eaton Gardens,Hove - Full Planning

Change of use from Nursing Home (C2) to 15no bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (Sui generis) incorporating internal alterations to layout and rationalising of existing pipework (Part retrospective).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Goldsmid

Change of use from Nursing Home (C2) to 15no bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO)(Sui generis) incorporating internal alterations to layout and rationalising of existing pipework (Part retrospective)

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, introduced the report by reference to site plans, floor plans, elevational drawings and photographs. The application site was a Grade II late Victorian detached villa which fell within the Willett Estate Conservation Area and had been subject over the years to a number of internal and external alterations which had resulted in loss/damage to some of the historic fabric of the building. Permission was sought to convert the property to a large house in multiple occupation (HMO) and would result in the removal of a number of the unauthorised works which had taken place at the property. The most recently amended plans received would reinstate some of the original features and layout of the listed building.

(2)          The change to a Sui Generis HMO would result in a more intensive use of the property and a greater impact on the immediate and surrounding area. It was acknowledged that the level of activity that would occur from unconnected adults living together would be more intensive and might result in different patterns of behaviour and frequent comings and goings. However, given that the predominant character of Eaton Gardens was flatted developments, containing up to 40 units it was considered that the resultant occupancy and associated level of activity was comparable to that of neighbouring properties. The layout of the proposed shared kitchen/dining areas was such that it could reasonably accommodate the furniture necessary for occupiers to cook and eat meals. Each habitable room would have acceptable levels of light, outlooking and ventilation to provide an acceptable standard of living and each bedroom measured above the minimum standards contained in the Governments National Space Standards and were acceptable in accordance with the council’s own Policy QD27, approval of the scheme was therefore recommended.

              Questions for Officers

(3)          Councillor C Theobald sought clarification regarding the proposed internal layout expressing concern that it appeared that some of the existing bathroom facilities were to be removed. It was explained that the proposed changes were considered to be acceptable as an acceptable standard of accommodation and room sizes would result as well as improvements to the internal layout of the listed building.

(4)          Councillor Morris sought clarification that planning permission would be required in order for any other works to be undertaken and it was confirmed that was so.

(5)          Councillor Daniel sought clarification regarding the requirements of the proposed management plan and the intended end user(s), expressing the view that she did not consider that the quality of accommodation proposed i.e., shared bathroom and cooking facilities should be encouraged.

(6)          Councillor Moonan enquired regarding parking arrangements for future occupiers and it was confirmed that would be controlled by proposed Condition 7.

(7)          Councillor Miller referred to the need to restrict the number of individuals living in the development and it was confirmed that was restricted to 20 and was specified in Condition 3.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)          Councillor Daniel she had concerns regarding the type of accommodation proposed and would therefore abstain.

(9)          Councillor Miller stated that he had concerns regarding the internal changes proposed notwithstanding that they would have the benefit of reinstating some of the fabric of the listed building and addressing earlier unauthorised works.

(10)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he considered that the application was acceptable and would therefore be voting in support of the officer recommendation.

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

109.6    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.