Agenda item - BH2018/03921 - 49A Surrenden Road, Brighton -Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2018/03921 - 49A Surrenden Road, Brighton -Full Planning

Change of use of former coach house from ancillary residential accommodation to holiday let accommodation to holiday let accommodation for a temporary 12 month period.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected :Withdean

Minutes:

              Change of use of former coach house from ancillary residential accommodation to holiday let accommodation for a temporary 12 month period.

 

              Officer Presentation

 

(1)          The Principal Planning Office, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings detailing the proposed use. The application related to an existing ancillary single storey brick-built building with pitched roof, located to the rear of No 49 Surrenden Road. It was likely that the building was a former coach house and it could be accessed via a pedestrian gate from number 49 with vehicular access via a service road to the rear which served a number of properties in Surrenden Road and Cornwall Gardens. Temporary permission was sought for 12 months for use as a holiday let and no external alterations were required.

 

(2)          It was noted that the main considerations in the determining this application were the principle of the proposed development, impact on the character and visual amenity of the conservation area, impact on the amenities of adjoining and nearby occupiers, highways and parking and sustainability. The proposal would provide short term self-catering accommodation in an area with good transport links to the city centre and wider area and had an existing parking space with its own separate access. As such it would provide a reasonable level of short-term accommodation. In this instance, the proposed change of use was to holiday let not a permanent residential dwelling. As such, the number of comings and goings throughout the year would be arguably less than for a residential home. The building would remain ancillary to the main house as it would not be in permanent use as a residential dwelling and would be maintained and managed by No.49. No external alterations  or extensions were proposed, nor loss of trees or important features which would affect the appearance of the conservation area as a permanent residential dwelling. A management plan which outlined measures to reduce noise disturbance was recommended to be secured by condition. It was therefore considered that this application would not have the same impact on the conservation area and approval was therefore recommended. It was considered that by giving, temporary permission for 12 months this would enable the Local Planning Authority to fully assess the impact of the scheme on the conservation area and local community. Given the restricted size of the building and its curtilage the number of guests should be restricted to a maximum of four.

 

              Questions of Officers

 

(3)          Councillor Moonan sought confirmation that the proposed conditions were sufficiently robust to ensure that the building could only be used as a holiday let. It was confirmed that this use would be temporary for 12 months and that it be use as ancillary to the main dwelling. It could not be used as a separate dwelling without a separate permission being applied for and obtained.

 

(4)          Councillor Littman asked for further confirmation on this point as there was an apparent contradiction if although ancillary to the main house a change could be effected in future which would enable this unit to be used as a separate living unit. Councillor Littman also sought clarification regarding escape arrangements in the event of fire. It was explained that this would need to be met under building control regulations.

 

(5)          Councillor Miller also asked for clarification in respect of use ancillary to the main building as he would be concerned if it was possible for this unit to become a separate dwelling by stealth. Councillor C Theobald asked to see plans of the internal layout of the first floor of the also raising points relating to any possible future use.

 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(6)          Councillor O’Quinn stated that she  had some concerns regarding potential noise nuisance  emanating from the unit.

 

(7)          Councillor Moonan stated that she considered the current temporary use to be acceptable but might form a different view if it was proposed that the building be used as a permanent dwelling.

 

(8)          Councillor Littman stated that for him the crux of the matter was whether use of the building was acceptable or not, he considered it was.

 

(9)          Councillor Hamilton stated that he could see no problems arising from the proposed temporary use as a holiday let which he considered to be acceptable.

 

(10-)      A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 with 1 abstention the 7 Members present voted that planning permission be granted.

 

145.2    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 and to the amendments set out below:

 

              Amendment to Condition 3:

              The use herby approved shall cease within 12 months of the day the change of use is implemented; and

              Amendment to Condition 6:

              A noise management plan for the use of the premises shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall be submitted to the council and approved prior to the first commercial let. The premises shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management plan.

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints