Agenda item - BH2021/03176 - 141 Elm Grove, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor Powell considered the development would have a negative impact with regards to noise, loss of light, pressure on community services, and parking. There are a large number of Homes of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) in the area. The councillor objected to the application and asked the committee to refuse the application.

3.    Patrick Eraut addressed the committee as the owner and developer of the site and stated that they had developed other properties across the city and noted that HMOs were often unpopular, and they did not mean to inconvenience the neighbours. The property would be developed to a high standard and would be in accordance with policy. The speaker considered that HMOs provide a vital option for renters across the city, the local density to the application area is low, the number of bedrooms has been reduced to five and some of the works have been carried out, including a secure cycle store to the front of the property.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the works already carried out were under permitted development and previous planning permissions.

5.    Councillor Moonan was informed that the property would have two bathrooms.

6.    Councillor Childs considered the bike storage was good and was informed by the Highway Agreements Officer that parking was not considered an issue as five people could live in a single household and not all renters would necessarily have a vehicle.

7.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the rear extension had been constructed with planning permission and the loft conversion under permitted development. It was confirmed that the application was for one property and did not include the neighbouring property.

8.    Councillor Littman considered the HMO mapping was not a representation of the true picture and was informed that a number of HMOs were located in a nearby block of flats.

Debate

9.    Councillor Yates considered the negatives to be that there were 3.22% HMOs in the area and noted that new policies would protect areas from over development. The positives were that the development was good, well designed and considered there was no reason to refuse. The Councillor noted that little action can be taken against unlicensed HMOs and considered the mapping to show the correct number of licensed HMOs and this would allow the proposals.

10.Councillor Fishleigh considered the area to overcrowded and they were against the application for reasons of overlooking, road safety and parking.

11.Councillor Childs considered the HMO numbers were incorrect an asked for them to be reviewed. The councillor considered the design to be better than others, however, the properties in the area are very close to each other. The councillor stated they were against the application. The councillor was informed that the licensing of HMOs would be an issue for the licensing committee.

12.Councillor Ebel noted the application complied with Planning regulations however they were concerned that two bathrooms was not enough and should more people move in this would be an issue. Although they had concerns the councillor supported the application.

13.The Planning Manager informed the committee that the number of occupiers was limited under condition 3.

14.The case officer informed the committee that the mapping shows the number of licensed HMOs in the area and council tax records were inspected to see if the property was commercial or private.

15.Councillor Theobald considered the dormer window to be out of place and another bathroom was needed.

16.Councillor Moonan requested that the Planning Members Working Group look at enforcement of unlicensed HMOs.

17.Councillor Littman considered the figures to be correct and considered the application to be compliant and noted that there is an article 4 in the Elm Grove area to help balance accommodation in the area where the rents are very high. The councillor considered the two bathrooms was sufficient and they supported the application.

Vote

18.A vote was taken, and the committee agreed by 4 to 5 to grant planning permission. (The chair used a casting vote).

19.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 in the report.