Agenda item - BH2020/01834 - 85 Hornby Road, Brighton - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2020/01834 - 85 Hornby Road, Brighton - Full Planning

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Moulsecoomb & Bevendean

Minutes:

Erection of single storey rear extension and covered cycle store. Change of use from single dwelling house (C3) to 6no bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4) (Retrospective)

 

(1)        It was noted that am in-depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development.

 

(2)        It was noted that the main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the proposed change of use, the design and appearance of the rear extension and bike storage, the effects of the proposed change of use on neighbouring amenity, the standard of accommodation to be provided for future occupiers and transport matters. Due to the on-going pandemic a physical site visit had not taken place, however a desktop assessment had been made using up to date photographs and street view imagery and was considered sufficient to assess the acceptability of the proposal. Whilst it was recommended that a condition be applied to ensure that the sound proofing and door closers provided should be retained and maintained it was not considered that there would be a negative impact greater than could reasonably be expected from a large family and that the points raised by objectors provided sufficient grounds for refusal on those grounds. It was also considered that the change of use from C3 to C4 small HMO was unlikely to have a significant effect on the local highway network nor in terms of overspill parking as the property was not located within a CPZ so there were no restrictions on on-street parking. Cycle parking was also proposed and a condition was recommended to ensure that it was provided and retained in accordance with the details provided. Approval was therefore recommended.

 

            Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(3)        Councillor Fishleigh stated that the site was located very close to Norwich Drive where there were a number of student houses which gave rise to noise and nuisance complaints. A large number of residents had objected and she shared their concerns and would not support the application. It would also in her view add to an increase in traffic, on street parking and would result in the loss of a family home.

 

(4)        Councillor Shanks stated that whilst generally supportive of the application she had concerns regarding the proposed cycle store. The Legal Adviser to the Committee explained that it was rare to vote against one element of a scheme, it needed to be considered on and voted on in its totality. The Planning Manager, Jane Moseley stated that if issues arose enforcement action could be undertaken. The property would operate as an HMO and would not necessarily provide student accommodation.

(5)        Councillor Theobald referred to the fact that fire safety requirements had not been referred to. It was explained that all necessary requirements would need to be met, however they fell within Building Control Regulations rather than under the planning regime.

 

(6)        Councillor Osborne stated that he was of the view that generally an HMO was likely to generate more activity and noise than a family home but considered that there were insufficient grounds to refuse the application. The rear extension would also generate more activity.

 

(7)        Councillor Bagaeen stated that he was unhappy about the retrospective nature of the application and the fact that there appeared to be a number of similar uses (although below the threshold) relatively nearby.

 

(8)        In answer to further points raised the legal adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward stated that in the event of an appeal in respect of any application, the grounds for any refusal had to be reasonable and sustainable.

 

(9)        A vote was taken and the 7 Members present when the a vote was taken voted by 4 to 1 with 2 Abstentions that Planning Permission be granted.

 

71.2      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 conditions and informatives also set out in the report.

 

            Note: Councillors Janio and Williams were not present during consideration of the above application. Having declared a prejudicial interest Councillor Yates withdrew from the meeting and took no part in consideration of the application.

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