Agenda item - BH2025/02981 - 15 Auckland Drive, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor Taylor addressed the committee and stated that Bevendean was perfect for families, with homes built in the 1940/50/60s close to the Downs, parks and schools. These are the future of the city. The council are buying back homes. The application should be considered under policies DM1, DM7 – the scheme was not good quality with the scale and form of the roof extension being harmful to the host building. The application is against policies CP12, DM18 and DM21. The increase from 5 to 8 occupiers will create an increase in noise and disturbance and the design is poor against policies DM20 and DM40.

3.    Joseph Pearson addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the property would be quality student accommodation and there no other Homes of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) within 50m of the location. The house is already an HMO and has been for the last 20 years. The council’s city plan calls for mixed communities, not just families. A film school is opposite. The extensions could be constructed under Permitted Development Rights (PDR).

Answers to Committee Members Questions

4.    Councillor Nann was informed that the Use Class was Sui Generis as there would be more than 6 persons sharing the dwelling. It was noted the applicant could use permitted development rights for the physical works if they wished and the application is for the change of use.

5.    Councillor Pickett was informed that the roof dormer was under the volume allowed for a single dwelling under PDR.

6.    Councillor Sheard was informed that the bedrooms were at the minimum size allowed and this was a better standard than under an HMO licence.

7.    Councillor Cattell was informed that the previous application included the single storey rear extension. Larger dormers are allowed under PDR and current council design guidance for dormers is more lenient than previously at the time of the last refusal, especially where there is PDR fallback.

8.    Councillor Theobald was informed that it was not known if other HMOs in the area had as many occupiers as 8.

9.    Councillor Thomson was informed that the proximity of the film school had no impact on the calculations of HMOs. It was noted that there was no loss of a family home, there was 32sqm communal space, and sound proofing to adjoining property. The Environmental Health team or other agencies will cover any noise or anti-social behaviour reports.

Debate

10. Councillor Cattell noted that in the past HMOs were only restricted in certain areas of the city, and now, all has changed. The councillor noted the was no loss of a family home and supported the application.

11. Councillor Theobald considered the dormer to be ugly, and they were fed up with the loss of family homes. The councillor expressed concerns that noise would increase from overcrowding, which was too much for the property.

12. Councillor Sheard stated HMOs were needed as there was a housing crisis. They considered the property to acceptable with sound proofing. The size of the bedrooms could be improved; however, they supported the application.

13. Councillor Pickett considered the design to be out of balance; however, they supported the application.

14. Councillor Cattell considered the property would provide a good home for students and others. They considered there was a strong case for this HMO. The councillor supported the application.

15. Councillor Parrott considered the bedrooms to be very small, and the living space to be good. The dormer is considered to be ugly. However, a mix of housing is needed, and the councillor supported the application.

16. Councillor Earthey considered the property to be a rabbit hutch for humans, and they sympathised with the Ward Councillor; however, on balance they supported the application.

17. Councillor Winder expressed concerns at the size of the bedrooms; however, the living space was good. The councillor noted that some HMOs were being converted back to family homes. The councillor supported the application.

18. Councillor Thomson considered 8 persons sharing to be a lot; however, there was no reason to refuse.

Vote

19. A vote was held, and by 8 to 1, the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

20. 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.