Agenda item - BH2019/01050 -26 Brentwood Crescent, Brighton- Full Planning

Change of use from (C3) dwelling house to (C4) small house in multiple occupation.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Hollingdean and Stanmer

Change of use from (C3) dwelling house to (C4) small house in multiple occupation.

(1)             As the Chair had declared a prejudicial interest in respect of the above application and would be vacating the Chair and leaving the meeting during its consideration and determination the Democratic Services Officer requested that a Chair be formally appointed. Councillor Theobald was proposed by Councillor Simson and seconded by Councillor Yates and was duly appointed. Councillor Theobald in the Chair.

              Officer Presentation

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Matt Gest, introduced the report and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was noted that the main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the change of use, impact on neighbouring amenity, the standard of accommodation to be provided, transport issues and the impact on the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area. Overall, the scheme was considered to be acceptable and approval was recommended. Attention was drawn to the additional letter of objection received the amendment to the officer report in Paragraph 8.8 and an additional condition all of which were set out in the were set out in the Late/Additional Representations List.

              Public Speakers

(3)          Ms Banks spoke on behalf of both neighbouring objectors setting out their concerns in respect of the proposal. Ms Banks had circulated a set of proposed conditions which she considered would be appropriate to address the concerns of one neighbour and should be applied in the event the Committee were minded to grant the application. These related primarily to preventing parking of vehicles on the shared driveway which separated the application property and the neighbouring dwelling and to limiting the number of residents and to controlling noise and disturbance. In this instance both sets of immediate neighbours had particular sensitivities which needed to be respected.

(4)          Councillor Osborne spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the scheme and those of his fellow ward councillors. These related to noise nuisance, overdevelopment and the negative impact on neighbouring residential amenity. Having spoken Councillor Osborne left the meeting and took no part in the debate or decision making process.

(5)          Mr Dorman, spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their proposal. He stated that he had a number of similar units across the city all of which were well managed and operated in a manner which respected neighbours. Residents were provided with the landlord’s contact details in the event of any problems. The scheme had been well designed for the benefit of those living there and so that it would not have a detrimental impact on neighbours. Mr Dorman had stated his willingness to enter into a good landlord scheme but had to date received no response from the Council and he hoped that this was something which could be taken forward with the new Committee.

(6)          In answer to questions of the objectors representative it was confirmed that there was a restrictive covenant which stipulated that the driveway could only be used for vehicles to pass and that no parking was permitted. Advice was sought of the Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward and it was explained that the restrictive covenant would of itself control use of the driveway and so a condition relating to the same would be unnecessary. The Principal Planning Officer, Matt Gest advised that the conditions proposed would cover the other issues raised by the objector’s representative. Officers also clarified that enforcement action could be taken against any infringement of any planning permission granted.

Questions of Officers

(7)          Councillor Shanks enquired whether the number/use of cars accessing the property could be limited by condition and it was confirmed they could not.

(8)          Councillor Simson enquired whether it was known whether the end users of the scheme would be students or working professionals. It was confirmed that it was anticipated that they would be students. Councillor Simson also asked whether permission would be required to convert the property back into a house and it was confirmed that it would not.

(9)          Councillors Simson and Shanks also referred to the mapping exercise of HMO’s in the area asking for clarification of how that assessment was made. Reference had been made to other uses in the area which appeared to be potential HMO’s. It was explained that checks were made of the electoral roll, council tax records and records relating to HMO use. Unless it had been established that a property was a lawful then it would not be included. An Article 4 Direction sought to control numbers and once the agreed percentage had been reached this would impact on any future applications.

(10)       Councillor Shanks referred to measures to be undertaken to ensure control of noise. It was confirmed that the applicants had indicated they would be undertaking appropriate measures although these had not been set out in detail as this was over and above what we would  normally require.

(11)       Councillor Yates referred to the fact the ultimately although landlords might provide a good-tenants guide and encourage good behaviour this was not guaranteed. Councillor Yates also sought confirmation that any further building works to the property which would increase occupancy beyond six would require planning permission and could come back to committee and it was confirmed that they could.

(12)       It was confirmed in answer to questions by Councillor Hugh-Jones that no external works were proposed to the property and that internal works had already been carried out.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)       Councillor Simson stated that she was concerned that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact in this area which was characterised by family homes. Noise would also represent an issue particularly externally in view of the additional comings and goings from the property due to intensification of the existing use.

(14)       Councillor Shanks concurred in that view.

(15)       Councillor Theobald stated that she considered that the proposed scheme would be un-neighbourly and she did not support it.

(16)       Councillor Yates considered that the restrictive covenant and proposed conditions would limit use of the property which would not lead to more intensive use of the site than might be the case if a family were to live there. In his view what was proposed was policy compliant.

(17)       A vote was taken on the officer recommendation to grant the application and this was lost on a vote of 4 to 1. Councillor Simson then proposed that the application be refused on the ground of impact on neighbouring amenity by reason of noise nuisance. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Shanks and it was agreed that the final form of wording of the proposed reason for refusal be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with Councillors Simson and Shanks.

(18)       A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors Hugh-Jones, Shanks, Simson and Theobald voted that planning permission be refused. Councillor Yates voted that planning permission be granted. Therefore planning permission was refused.‘

25.1       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 that the proposed change of use to a HMO would result in increased noise disturbance and nuisance that would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. For these reasons the application is contrary to policies CP21 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan. 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: Councillor Fishleigh and Miller had given their apologies and were not present at the meeting. Having declared a prejudicial interest Councillors Hill, the Chair, Fowler and Osborne left the meeting and took no part in the consideration of, or decision making process in respect of the above application.