Agenda item - BH2026/00393 - 19 New England Street, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor McLeay sent a speech read out by the Democratic Services officer: The officer report concludes the proposal technically meets current HMO policy thresholds - 6% HMO concentration within 50 metres is below the 10% ward threshold, and below the city-wide limit. However, policy compliance should not be the end of our consideration. Seven local residents have objected. New England Street is a dense residential street with families and young children living immediately adjacent. Noise, disturbance and high turnover are already sensitive issues in this location. Four-bed family homes are in severe shortage across Brighton and Hove. Accommodating seven people risks creating cramped conditions and pressure on shared facilities. Seven occupants would almost certainly require some bedrooms to be double-occupied. We must not approve a scheme that risks poor living conditions for tenants themselves. The communal living room is large and should be protected as a communal area – not retrospectively converted into a bedroom. This address is not eligible for parking permits within the Controlled Parking Zone. Any future residents would need to rely on long-term paid parking off London Road. Community impact, housing need, living conditions and cumulative change on this street all justify a much more cautious approach. I urge you to scrutinise this proposal closely and consider whether refusal, reduction in occupancy, or stronger conditions would better serve both residents and the wider city.

3.    Toby Deacon addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that there was 2% Homes of Multiple Occupancy (HMO), well below the 20% allowed. No extensions are proposed, and the existing bedrooms remain. There will be no overlooking issues. The proposals will not cause any material harm, with robust management control. There is a condition to prevent noise. The site will offer a good standard of living in this sustainable location. This is a car free location with excellent access to the train station, buses and the local supermarket. The proposals comply with the local plan. The committee were requested to agree the application.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the only internal alternations would be introducing a wall on the first floor and moving a bedroom door. It was noted there was no permitted development available, therefore if the property were to be converted back to a family home, planning permission would be required. The number of bathrooms would remain the same, as would the communal space.

5.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the small bedroom was 7.5sqm, which was acceptable, as was the communal space.

6.    Councillor Pickett was informed that the application was assessed on seven persons sharing.

7.    Councillor Cattell was informed that the current use as an AirBnB was unlawful, and planning enforcement would investigate any reports of the property being used as such in the future. It was noted that another HMO application in the area had not been brought to committee as there were not enough objections.

8.    Councillor Robinson was informed that the calculations for HMOs in the area would change if this application was agreed. The motivation for submitting the application was not known and would not be a material consideration.

9.    Councillor Thomson was informed that the concurrent HMO application would be affected if this application was agreed.

Debate

10. Councillor Theobald stated they were sorry not to see photographs of the proposed rooms. It was good that the property would not be a ‘party house’ let. The application is difficult to turn down. The councillor therefore supported the application.

11. Councillor Cattell was concerned that the property had been used as an unlawful AirBnB. They considered the application could not be refused. Any reports of the house being a ‘holiday let’ should be reported.

12. Councillor Parrott was concerned that the communal space would be turned into a bedroom by stealth, however, an HMO was not necessarily a bad thing.

13. Councillor Robinson considered the situation was not ideal, however, the application would formalise the position, and HMOs were needed. The councillor supported the application.

14. Councillor Sheard stated they lived in an HMO and costs were rising. The double rooms were a good thing, offering stability for young couples. Car parking was not needed in this sustainable location. It was refreshing to have above minimum standard rooms sizes.

15. Councillor Pickett considered it was sad to lose a family home, however, there were not many physical changes. The councillor supported the application.

16. Councillor Shanks noted the property had been an AirBnB for some time. The accommodation was considered to be good.

17. Councillor Thomson supported the application.

Vote

18. A vote was held, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

19. 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.