Agenda item - BH2019/00478-10 Selham Close, Brighton - Removal or Variation of Condition

Application for removal of condition 4 of application BH2018/01160 (Change of Use from residential dwelling to 6no bedroom small House in Multiple Occupation (C4) incorporating revised fenestration, sound proofing, cycle stands and associated works (Retrospective)) which states no extension, enlargement, alteration or provision within the curtilage of the of the dwelling house as provided for within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A - E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) other than that expressly authorised by this permission shall be carried out without planning permission obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Holligdean & Stanmer

Application for removal of condition 4 of application BH2018/01160 (Change of Use from residential dwelling to 6no bedroom small House in Multiple Occupation (C4) incorporating revised fenestration, sound proofing, cycle stands and associated works (Retrospective)) which states no extension, enlargement, alteration or provision within the curtilage of the dwelling-house as provided for within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A - E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) other than that expressly authorised by this permission shall be carried out without planning permission obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

(1)          As the Chair, Councillor Hill, had declared a prejudicial interest in respect of this application, Councillor Williams, the Deputy Chair, took the Chair during its consideration. Having spoken in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor, Councillor Hill withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the decision making process.

Officer Presentation

(2)          The Senior Planning Officer, Joanne Doyle, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, drawings and photographs detailing the scheme. It was explained that the application sought to remove condition 4 and that considerations in respect of this application were as to whether or not removal of the condition was appropriate. It was acknowledged that in this case the potential for permitted development extensions and alterations was limited as any development which involved the formation of additional bedrooms could not be carried out.

(3)          A letter had accompanied the application citing two recent appeal decisions which had turned on this issue. They were comparable with regard to the use relevant to this application (C4) and the relationship with neighbouring properties and therefore the application to remove this condition was recommended for approval.

            Public Speakers

(4)          Councillor Hill spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor re-iterating he concerns and objections in respect of the application before withdrawing from the meeting during its consideration and determination. In her view planning permission should have been required as in her view they were such that they constituted a change of use. She considered that use of the property had been changed by stealth and the change which would enable 6 people to reside there had a detrimental impact on neighbours. Extending the property further would impact on immediate neighbours even more. Further extension and loft conversion was likely to enable greater occupancy and should in her view require change of use. Having spoken, Councillor Hill withdrew from the meeting.

            Questions of Officers

(5)          Councillor Yates referred to the points raised by Councillor Hill and sought confirmation as to why permission was not required in this instance. Councillors Littman and Miller raised questions in a similar vein.

(6)          It was confirmed that the works undertaken previously under permitted development had not required planning permission and in this instance the recent decisions of the planning inspectorate in respect of markedly similar applications in the vicinity were relevant and would be taken into account at appeal should this application be refused. The rationale for this was set out in the report, including why in this instance it would not be possible to limit the number of occupants. Works carried out as permitted development were separate from those for which planning permission was required. Whilst planning permission could be refused, the council’s position in the event of an appeal being lodged was considered weak. Further works which fell outside permitted development would require planning permission.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)          Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he considered that a consistent approach was being advocated in the light of the decisions referred to, to do otherwise would expose the planning authority to risk. Each application needed to be considered on its individual merits.

(8)       Councillors Yates and Miller concurred in that view.

(9)          Councillor Theobald stated that she was not happy to accept further proliferation of the existing use particularly in relation to a terraced property. She considered that the level of development unacceptable.

(10)       Councillor Simson agreed stating that she did not consider the proposals acceptable and Councillor Littman also concurred in that view.

(11)       A vote was taken and the nine Members present when the vote was taken voted by 6 to 3 that planning permission be granted.

6.8         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.

              Note: Having declared a prejudicial interest in the application the Chair, Councillor Hill withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the decision making process. The Chair was taken throughout by the Deputy Chair, Councillor Williams.