Agenda item - BH2019/01986 - 22 Crescent Road, Brighton - Full Planning (Retrospective)

Change of use from single dwellinghouse (C3) to 5no bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4).

1)            Principle Planning Officer, Luke Austin, introduced the application with a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to plans, site plans, photographs, elevational drawings and aerial views showing the site and its boundaries. Reference was also made to the additional representations received detailed in the Late/Additional Representations List.

Questions for officer

2)            Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty was informed that the second-floor terrace to the rear of the property was existing and only accessible from one bedroom and no other rooms. It was noted that there is already overlooking harm to the amenities of the neighbours and this would not be increased.

3)            Councillor Sue Shanks received confirmation that the balcony and terrace referred to in the report were the same thing, and this was the only outside space. It was noted that the retrospective application did not require condition no.2 – commencement within 3 years.

4)            Councillor Nick Childs was informed that the property had been a family home in the past. It was noted that Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) are plotted on a map to prevent overcrowding in one area. If an HMO did not have a licence, it would not appear on the map.

5)            Councillor Carol Theobald was informed that the fire escape routes were through other rooms and windows were deemed low enough to escape from. It was noted that HMOs require a licence as well as planning permission. The Councillor was also informed that there is no cycle parking on the site and sound proofing was not a requirement.

6)            Councillor Daniel Yates was informed that previously planning permission was granted in the 1980s for the property to be split into two flats. It was not known if this permission was implemented as planning permission would not be required to return the property to one unit. It was stated that it was not known if there were any enforcement records relating to the terrace. 

Debate

7)            Councillor Daniel Yates noted that the terrace could be used by any occupants if the dwelling were a family home and the access was through one bedroom only. It was felt that use would not necessarily increase if the property were an HMO. The Councillor felt that there could be excessive use of conditions regarding the use of the terrace.

8)            Councillor Nick Childs had concerns of over development, increase in noise and vehicle movements outside property. The Councillor commented that they felt the terrace would become a party area and increase the possibility of noise pollution. 

9)            Councillor Carol Theobald noted the large number of letters of objection and felt that there was a possibility of increased noise pollution. The Councillor felt that HMOs require restrictions to prevent negative interactions with the existing community. 

10)         Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty commented that overlooking from the terrace could be mitigated by inserting screening by condition.

11)         A vote was held to add a condition to the recommended conditions to add screening to the terrace to reduce harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties.

5 = Yes. 2 = No. 0 = Abstentions. It was agreed that a condition would be added should the application be granted planning permission.

12)         A vote was held to determine the application.

3 = Yes. 4 = Against. 0 = Abstentions. The Application was REFUSED against the officer recommendation to grant permission.

13)         Councillor Yates proposed to reject the application on the grounds that the application would have a harmful impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties by way of increased noise pollution, increased waste and anti-social behaviour in a conservation area. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Nick Childs.

14)         The Committee voted to REFUSE the application for the reasons given above.

Decision

55.5    REFUSED: The proposed development would be contrary to Policy QD27, being harmful to the amenity of neighbours by reason of noise and disturbance both from within the property and from the terrace due to the intensification of the use.