Agenda item - BH2019/01474- 7A Southover Street, Brighton - Full Planning

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

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Hanover & Elm Grove

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

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Planning Officer, Laura Hamlyn, introduced the application 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. Whilst the bedrooms fronting Southover Street would have an awkward layout, given the additional benefit of a study room to share at first and second floor level, it is considered that the proposal would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation.

(2)          Whilst the subdivision of the first and second floor rooms fronting Hanover Street was not considered an appropriate alteration, given the limited visibility of that partition from street level it was not considered that refusal of the application solely on that basis could be sustained. The proposed use would result in an increase in occupancy but it was not considered such that it would result in significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Overall the scheme was considered acceptable and approval was recommended.

              Public Speakers

(3)          Councillor Powell spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections and those of local residents, stating that she considered that the creation of another HMO represented an unneighbourly overdevelopment. There was concern that the proposed study areas could be converted into additional bedrooms in future which would lead to more intensive use of the site in terms both of occupancy and trip generation. Located directly opposite purpose built student accommodation it was considered that this would impact negatively on neighbouring amenity.

              Questions of Officers

(4)          Councillor Yates referred to the internal layout proposed querying whether the circulation space in the kitchen would be sufficient, particularly as the toilet led directly off it, also whether the study areas could be converted into bedrooms.

(5)          It confirmed that the accommodation provided overall was considered to be adequate. Proposed conditions 3 and 4 would restrict use of the proposed study and any other use would be a breach of planning conditions and could give rise to enforcement action being taken.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)          Councillor Yates stated that he considered that the circulation space available in the kitchen would be insufficient for the number of occupants and would not therefore be of an acceptable standard. This would be exacerbated by the fact that the toilet facilities needed to be accessed from the kitchen.

(7)          Councillor Theobald agreed considering that it would also be more appropriate if a bathroom rather than a shower room was provided.

(8)          Councillor Hill, the Chair concurred with all that had said stating the she too would be voting that the application be refused.

(9)          A vote was taken on the officer recommendation to grant the application and this was lost on a vote of none in favour and eight against. Councillor Yates then proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of the standard of accommodation, specifically the kitchen, having regard to the proposed number of occupants and the nature of the kitchen being a corridor to the toilet facilities. 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, Hugh- Jones, Osborne Shanks, Simson Theobald and Yates voted unanimously that planning permission be refused. Therefore planning permission was refused.

25.7       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 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 : Councillors Fishleigh and Miller had given their apologies and were not present at the meeting.