Agenda item - BH2020/03070 - 95 Heath Hill Avenue, Brighton - Full Planning

(1)              It was noted that an 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 and  elevational drawings which showed the scheme in the context of neighbouring development. It was noted that the application previously refused by the Committee and the planning inspector’s decision thereon were relevant to consideration of this application.

(2)        The current application had reduced the number of occupiers sought from 9 to 8 when compared with the previous, refused application. This would increase the occupancy from the six which could currently lawfully reside. The rear extension would accommodate the communal space for future occupiers but did not physically adjoin the neighbouring property at no 93, and acoustic fencing was proposed along that boundary. The Planning Inspector had ruled that the sound proofing measures proposed would be inadequate to protect to protect the amenity of neighbouring amenity. However, as the likely increase in noise output was likely to be less significant than that associated with the dismissed appeal scheme the application was considered to be acceptable and approval was recommended.

(3)        As Councillor Yates had submitted objections in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor he withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the debate and decision making process. Before doing so he referred to the Inspector’s decision, subsequent applications and properties identified as breaching the regulations he believed that they exceeded the number permitted within a 50m radius.

(4)        Councillor Childs sought clarification of this point. Councillor Janio queried whether as the property was already in use as an HMO an increase in the number of residents would not give rise to an additional HMO as it was already in use as one. It was explained that the overall percentage of HMOs had been assessed, that it was 5.9% within a 50m radius and therefore fell within the 10% limit specified within policy CP21.(5) Councillor Childs stated that he considered the proposed scheme remained unneighbourly, represented overdevelopment and would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity. Councillors Miller and Osborne concurred. Both were of the view that the previous reasons for refusal had not been overcome.

(6)        Councillor Fishleigh suggested that the application could be refused on traffic generation grounds but the Chair advised that as the situation had not changed and this had not formed part of the previous reasons for refusal it would not be appropriate to introduce them now.

(7)        A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 with 1 abstention the 8 Members present when the vote was taken voted that the application be refused. It was then proposed by Councillor Miller and seconded by Councillor Childs--- that the previous reasons for refusal had not been overcome and that the proposed use would have a significant direct and cumulative impact on the amenity of immediately neighbouring properties due to increased activity including noise disturbance, additional comings and goings from the property and increased refuse and recycling contrary to policies QD27 and SU10 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan. A recorded vote was then taken. Councillors Littman (The Chair), Osborne (Deputy Chair), Childs, Fishleigh, Henry, Miller and Shanks voted that planning permission be refused. Councillor Janio abstained.

92.11    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the reasons for the recommendation set out in report but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in paragraph (7) above. The final wording of the reason for refusal is to be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with the proposer and seconder.

            Note (1): Having declared a prejudicial interest in the above application and spoken in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor Yates withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the debate and decision making process.

            Note (2): Due to technical difficulties Councillor Theobald was not present during consideration of the above application and therefore took no part in the debate or decision making process.