Agenda item - BH2018/00316 - 15 Twyford Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of Use from 3 bedroom single dwelling (C3) to a single dwelling or a 6 bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (C3/C4) with alterations to fenestration.

RECOMMENDATION - GRANT

Change of Use from 3 bedroom single dwelling (C3) to a single dwelling or a 6 bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (C3/C4) with alterations to fenestration.

            Officer introduction

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Gareth Giles, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans. He stated that the main considerations in determining the application related to: the principle of the change of use, the design of the external works, the standard of accommodation which the use would provide, impact upon neighbouring amenity and transport issues. 53 letters objecting to the scheme had been received and Councillors Hill and Inkpin-Leissner had also objected in their capacity as Local Ward Councillors. One further letter of objection had been received following the re-advertisement of the proposal. One representation had also been received which reported that work had already commenced.

Public Speakers

(2)          Councillor Hill provided a written representation:

“I’ve received complaints from residents of Twyford Road about the application and the fact that work started on the property before the decision has been made. As detailed in the committee paper, there have been over 50 objections to this application, demonstrating the increasingly strong feelings about HMO proliferation in Coldean. A large number of objections were also made to a similar application at 12 Twyford Road which was approved at last month’s planning committee.

“In addition to these, there are applications for infill development on either side of the entrance to Twyford Road, both of which are being made by HMO developers. And there are numerous other applications in the general area. One nearby property in particular has generated a great deal of frustration because although the application was only for 6 occupants, it was clear right at the beginning of the building works that there was an intention to house up to nine. Residents feel misled by these applications which do not accurately state the intentions of the developers.

“15 Twyford Road is a terraced house originally intended as a family home. If planning permission is given, there will be six people living there all leading independent lives, cooking separate meals and coming and going at separate hours. This will cause noise and disturbance to neighbours even if the occupants are not particularly noisy, because the house just isn’t designed for this many independent people. While currently the 10% threshold has not been met, it is likely that it soon will be from the increased number of HMO developments Coldean is currently seeing. Aside from the threshold, the impact of a six-person HMO in this small road, alongside the other HMO which has just been approved, will be felt by residents.

“I hope the committee will take all these views into consideration.”

            Questions to the Planning Officer

(3)          In response to Councillor Marsh, Officers stated that proposals to change Council policy around Houses in Multiple Occupation were in the very early stages and it was not yet possible to say whether new policy would contraindicate the application.

(4)          In response to Councillor Marsh, Officers confirmed that two of the 43 dwellings within 50m of the site were Houses in Multiple Occupation.

(5)          In response to Councillor Marsh, Officers stated that applications were taken on a first come first serve basis and pending applications were not considered when calculating the number of Houses in Multiple Occupation in an area.

(6)          In response to Councillor Gilbey, Officers confirmed what bathroom facilities were proposed at the property.

Debate and decision making process

(7)          Councillor Page stated that he would like to pay tribute to Councillor Hill’s work around Houses in Multiple Occupation and engaging community groups in a constructive way. The number of student properties in Coledean was impacting upon the viability of local schools and negatively impacting the community and was a warning for other areas of the city.

(8)          Councillor Taylor stated that he regretted the loss of a family home and the knock on effect this would have on the community and that it was unfortunate that planning policy did not offer many options to refuse the application.

(9)          Councillor O’Quinn echoed the previous comments. She stated that the Committee was compelled to agree the proposal by Council policy and that previous refusals had been allowed on appeal.

(10)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she would not be supporting the proposal as a similar application for 25 Wheatfield Way had been refused permission and the appeal had been dismissed on appeal. The Planning Inspector agreed that there would be significant harm to neighbouring amenity from increased occupancy despite the application meeting space requirements and being within policy.

(11)       Officers clarified that the application for 25 Whatefield Road was for a large House in Multiple Ocupation with up to nine occupants where as BH2018/00316 would have a maximum of four occupants. Loss of neighbouring amenity due to increased occupation was  a material planning consideration but was not often upheld by the Planning Inspector.

(12)       Councillor Marsh stated that she understood the constraints of the policy and that it was regrettable that work on the site had already commenced as this created a bad impression.

(13)       The Chair called a vote which was tied; 3 For, 3 Against with two abstentions. The Chair then used her casting vote to allow planning permission stating that she regretted the negative impact these applications had but that with current policy and the precedent set by previous decisions made by the Planning Inspectors she felt that refusal could not be defended at appeal.

31.12  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 detailed in the report.

            Councillors Miller and Inkpin-Leissner were not present for the consideration of BH2018/00316