Agenda item - BH2019/01687-25 Auckland Drive, Brighton- Full Planning

Change of use from 4 bedroom dwelling house (C3) to 6 bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4) with associate works including blocking of windows to side elevation and installation of cycle storage to front.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Moulsecoomb & Bevendean

              Change of use from 4 bedroom dwelling-house (C3) to 6 bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4) with associate works including blocking of windows to side elevation and installation of cycle storage to front.

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Planning Officer, Laura Hamlyn introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings in respect of the proposals.

(2)       It was noted that the main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the change of use, its impact on neighbouring amenity and transport issues. Amended drawings had been received during the course of the application, changing the position of the cycle store and providing additional detail on the topography of the front garden. It appeared that the conservatory to the rear had been in place for more than 4 years and it was considered that although the dining space was awkwardly laid out, this had been mitigated by the presence of the conservatory and overall the communal space was considered adequate for occupation by 6 persons and the standard of accommodation was considered to be acceptable. It was not considered that any demonstrable harm to amenity had been identified and the application was therefore considered to be in accordance with policy and approval was therefore recommended.

            Questions of Officers and Debate and Decision Making Process

(3)          Councillors Miller and Simson sought further clarification regarding any works carried out and in respect of the internal configuration of the building.

(4)          Councillor Mac Cafferty sought clarification as to whether a condition could be added to any permission granted requiring noise insulation measures to be undertaken in order to prevent noise nuisance occurring as a result of the conservatory being used as an integral element of the communal space. It was confirmed that it was not considered that this would be practicable or achievable, nor that it would be appropriate to limit use of the conservatory.

(5)          Councillor Hill, the Chair, stated that she had grave concerns that use of the conservatory as communal space was unacceptable in that it was of inadequate for that purpose and would undoubtedly in her view result in noise nuisance and impact detrimentally on neighbouring amenity. Councillor Hill also stated that she considered that the conservatory would be used as communal space because the communal space within the house itself was not very generous, so it was likely that residents would make use of the conservatory.

(6)          A vote was taken on the officer recommendation to grant the application and this was lost on a vote of 5 to 4 by the 9 members present. Councillor Hill then proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the existing conservatory was unacceptable as the sole community space within the building and would give rise to noise nuisance and would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Childs and it was agreed that the final form of wording of the proposed reasons for refusal be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with Councillors Hill and Childs.

(7)          A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors Hill, the Chair; Childs, the Deputy Chair, Fishleigh, Miller and Simson voted that the application be refused. Councillors Littman, Janio, Mac Cafferty and Shanks voted that planning permission be granted. Therefore, planning permission was refused on a vote of 5 to 4.

46.13    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report but resolves to REFUSE planning permission on the grounds proposed by Councillor Hill. The final wording to be used in the decision letter to be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with the proposer and seconder.

              Note: Having declared a prejudicial interest in respect of the above application Councillor Yates left the meeting and was not present during the debate and decision making process.