Agenda item - BH2018/01118- 103 Norwich Drive, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use from three bedroom dwelling house (C3) to six bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4) with alterations to fenestration.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Moulsecoomb & Bevendean

              Change of use from three bedroom dwelling house (C3) to six bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4) with alterations to fenestration. (Part-Retrospective)

  Officer Presentation

(1)  The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to drawings, elevational drawings, block plans, floorplans and photographs. It was noted that the main considerations in the determining this 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. The application site was a two-storey semi-detached property located in a residential area on the south west side of Norwich Drive; an Article 4 Direction was in place restricting the conversion of single dwelling houses to small HMO’s (C4).

(2)          The proposed changes to the internal layout of the property would result in 2no bedrooms at ground floor level with an open planned kitchen living and dining area and shower room and 4no bedrooms and 1no shower room at first floor level. The communal area, consisting of an open planned kitchen, lounge and dining area, measuring approximately 21sqm, would be fairly tight for a 6 person property. However, the communal space did have a functioning layout, the property benefited from a large rear garden space and the bedroom sizes were adequate in terms of size and circulation space. On that basis, with access to a large rear garden, a functional communal space and bedrooms with adequate amounts of useable floor space, the future occupants would likely benefit from an acceptable standard of accommodation and the application could be supported on that basis. If however the communal space was converted to a bedroom in future, this would severely restrict the level of shared space available to the occupants. Therefore, a condition would be applied to any planning permission granted restricting the use of this room to communal use only to ensure an acceptable layout and level of communal space was retained.

(3)          The proposed change of use from a C3 dwelling house to six bedroom C4 HMO would result in a more intensive use of the property including trips to/from the property and would have a greater impact on the immediate and surrounding area. It was considered that the increased impact likely to be caused in this case would not be of a magnitude which would cause demonstrable harm to neighbouring amenity and would not warrant the refusal of planning permission and planning approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions of Officers

(4)          Councillor C Theobald sought clarification regarding the number and location of the bathrooms/shower rooms to be provided.

(5)          Councillor Gilbey referred to the concerns which had been expressed regarding additional noise which could arise from a more intensive use of the property enquiring whether these could be considered as a material planning consideration. It was confirmed that they could but would need to be deemed such that they would constitute a demonstrable harm. They were not considered to be such in this case to justify grounds for refusal of planning permission.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)          Councillor O’Quinn noted all that had been said but re-iterated her concerns that there was apparently little leeway in refusing applications expressing concern that there could be a number of unlicensed HMO’s in any given area and the differing nature of the planning and licensing regimes in respect of this matter. This concerned her a lot.

(7)          Councillor Cattell, the Chair, concurred with Councillor O’Quinn stating that the need for greater integration of licensing and planning was recognised and the practicalities of strengthening the existing Article 4 Direction were being assessed. The number of HMO’s was being monitored but if the grounds on which an application was refused were not sufficiently rigorous the reality was that an permision was likely to be granted on appeal and the Council could be exposed to an application for costs.

(8)          A vote was taken and the 9 Members who were present when the vote was taken voted 7 to 2 that planning permission be granted.

77.9       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:

              Note: Councillors Bennett, Hyde and C Theobald were not present at the meeting during consideration or determination of the above application.