Agenda item - BH2024/01772 - 65 Ladies Mile Road, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Michelle Graham addressed the committee as a resident and stated that they lived nextdoor to the application site, and they would be adversely impacted by the proposals. The HMO article 4 direction is not relevant to the application. The difference between a family and nine individuals living in one home is spelt out in paragraph 2.58 of the City Plan Part Two. We are likely to suffer noise pollution. Comings and goings, and social events are likely to be more frequent. Previous decisions have refused 8 persons living together. The more occupants the more likely the noise and disturbance to a material degree. Granting permission would be contrary to policy QD27. The intensification of use will cause harm. Granting permission would also be contrary to policy CP14 as the character of the area is family housing. The proposals will cause harm to the health and wellbeing of the adjoining and other neighbours. I urge the council to refuse the scheme robustly.

3.    Ward Councillor Meadows addressed the committee and stated that parking in the area is atrocious, and the conversion would set a dangerous precedent for more Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) and AirBnB’s. The application site could be turned, once an HMO, into an AirBnB which the council would have no control over. Who will monitor the number of occupiers. Policy DM20 of City Plan Part Two states that planning permission would not be granted when it would cause a material nuisance. The increase in noise level would be detrimental to the neighbours. The differing lifestyles have not been considered appropriately. The application is for nine persons; however, the new layout could accommodate 13 persons. The neighbours will not know who to contact if problems arise. The proposals are contrary to City Plan policies CP14 and QD27 and the loss of family homes should be resisted, as should AirBnB’s.

Answers to committee Member Questions

4.    Councillor Shanks was informed that there is no controlled parking zone in the area, however there are some restrictions around schools and some double yellow lines.

5.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the property had been illegally subdivided into two units and an enforcement notice was served in 2015. The owners have complied and rearranged into a single unit.

6.    Councillor Theobald was informed that there were two ensuite bathrooms on the ground floor. The policies referenced were in the old city plan, however, the matters raised were still relevant and any complaints would be dealt with by the enforcement team. With reference to parking, it is noted that it is congested in the area at school drop off and pick up times. The councillor was informed that a noise assessment could be requested.

7.    Councillor Robinson was informed that it would be hard to condition that the owners contact details be available for neighbours to use in case of noise nuisance. Councillor Loughran noted that the Land Registry would hold the contact details of the owners. It was noted that a sound proofing condition would be hard to quantify.

8.    Councillor Thomson was informed that if the property were to be sold with permission, this was not relevant to the application.

9.    Councillor Shanks was informed that sound proofing did not form part of the application.

10. Councillor Loughran was informed that policy QD27 was no longer relevant. The councillor noted that the new policy towards licensing HMOs was very stringent.

11. Councillor Winder was informed that the kitchen was not next to the party wall and was considered large enough for 7 persons.

Debate

12. Councillor Theobald considered the location to be unsuitable, as it was close to two schools. Concerns regarding noise, refuse collection, and parking were expressed, and the application would change the area. There were no HMOs in the area, which meant this was the wrong area. The proposals would be terrible for the next-door neighbour. The councillor was against the application.

13.Councillor Fishleigh considered the application for 7 persons was too big. The councillor was against the application.

14. Councillor Robinson supported the application as more homes were needed and HMOs were not just for students.

15. Councillor Thomson supported the application as more rental properties were needed.

16. Councillor Shanks considered that HMOs and residential accommodation were required. The councillor requested that a noise condition be considered.

17. Councillor Loughran supported the application as they considered the property to be in a good location for an HMO. The rooms were split up on different levels, and 7 persons was good for this large property. The councillor did not consider this to be a major change.

18. Councillor Theobald proposed a motion to add a noise assessment condition. Councillor Shanks seconded the motion. The wording would be delegated to the planning officers.

Vote

19. A vote was taken on the additional condition and was agreed unanimously.

20. A vote was taken on the application and by 7 to 2 the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

21. 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 in the report.