Agenda item - BH2019/01615 - 55 Park Road, Brighton- Full Planning

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

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Hollingdean & Stanmer

Change of use from single dwelling-house (C3) to four bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4) (Retrospective).

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Planning Officer, Laura Hamlyn, introduced the report and gave a detailed presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings and photographs. The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the change of use, its impact on neighbouring amenity and transport issues. No external alterations were proposed and it was considered that there was adequate circulation space as well as natural light and ventilation. Although the proposed change of use would result in increased occupancy it was not considered such that it would amount to significant harm sufficient to warrant refusal. Approval was recommended.

              Questions of Officers

(2)          Councillor Theobald sought confirmation regarding the length of time the property had been in operation as a HMO. Also, regarding unauthorised works to the property. It was explained that the property had been in use since 2013 and that as the existing wrap around extension appeared to have been in place for more than four years it was exempt from formal enforcement action.

(3)          Councillor Simson sought clarification whether the property had originally been in use illegally and whether a licence/permission had been sought subsequently in order to regularise that situation. It was explained that not all HMO’s required registration but that the information used when “mapping” an area was generally reliable.

(4)          Councillor Yates asked whether consideration had been given to removing permitted development rights and it was explained that was not considered necessary as in this instance the internal layout of the property and room sizes restricted the number of individuals who could reside there.

(5)          Councillor Osborne sought clarification regarding how the requirement that no more than 10% of the properties within the area (50m) could be HMO’s was applied as the previous assessment was now considered to be in error.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)          Councillor Yates stated that he was familiar with the site location and as the garden areas were elevated above these properties and their neighbours any noise generated would carry. Given the topography of the site it would have a greater impact on the neighbouring dwellings and the vicinity.

(7)          Councillor Simson stated that she also had concerns that in this location loss of a family home and potential intensification of the current use would impact negatively and could also give rise to noise and disturbance. It was noted that the area was already very close to the 10% level permitted.

(8)          Councillor Hill, the Chair considered that the potential impact on neighbours was a germane consideration.

(9)          A vote was taken on the officer recommendation to grant the application and this was lost on a vote of 7 against with 1 abstention. Councillor Yates then proposed that the application be refused on the ground of impact on the amenity of neighbours by reason of noise nuisance. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Simson 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 Yates and Simson.

(10)       A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors Hill, Chair; Fowler, Osborne Shanks, Simson Theobald and Yates voted that planning permission be refused. Councillor Hugh- Jones abstained. Therefore planning permission was refused.

25.6       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 proposed by Councillor Yates. 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.