Agenda item - BH2017/03299, 82 Southover Street, Brighton - Full Planning

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

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Hanover and Elm Grove

Change of use from three bedroom dwelling (C3) to five bedroom small house in multiple occupation (HMO) (C4) (Retrospective)

Officers Introduction

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans. Reference was also made to the request received from Councillor Gibson that the application be determined by the Committee and to the letters of objection received from Councillors Gibson and Page.

(2)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the change of use, the standard of accommodation which the use would provide, the impact upon the neighbouring amenity and transport issues. The application was for a retrospective change of use from a C3 dwelling to a C4 HMO which would provide accommodation for up to 5 unrelated individuals. The five bedrooms in the property were of adequate size but the kitchen could only accommodate one or two occupants at a time and while the living room could accommodate up to 5 people there would be limited circulation space.

(3)          It was explained that during the mapping exercise that there were 96 residential properties within a 50m radius. 5.3% of these properties were currently HMOs. Five further properties were identified as being potentially in use as HMOs and these were being investigated by the Planning Enforcement Team. At least one of the five additional HMOs had since returned to a single dwelling house. If all 9 properties were in use as HMOs the total within a 50m radius would be 9.37%.

(4)          The Planning Officer also noted a late representation made by Councillor Page in relation to the application.

Questions to the Planning Officer

(5)          Councillor Platts asked how confident the Planning Officer was in the calculation of current HMO numbers within 50m of the address given the concern in the area about HMOs and the apparent existence of 4 unlicensed HMOs.

(6)          The Planning Officer responded that there was robust methodology for investigating HMOs which meant that he could be confident that the number of HMOs identified in the report was representative of the actual number in the area. The Planning Officer stated that although the concern about HMOs in the area expressed in objections was noted Planning Policy allowed10% of residences within a 50m radius and that the fact that granting the application would increase the total percentage to slightly over 10% would not be grounds for refusal.

(7)          Councillor Littman stated that he felt the Planning Policy on HMOs allowing for areas to increase above 10% was a sign that the policy was not functioning as intended.

(8)          In response to Councillor Platts the Transport Planning Officer stated that while a car free condition could be placed on the permission there was currently no waiting list for the permits in the parking control zone so he did not consider it necessary.

(9)          Councillor Gilbey was concerned by the lack of communal space in the property; the kitchen could only accommodate one or two people and the common areas included an outside courtyard which could not be used year round.

(10)       The Planning Officer stated that the adopted policies did not include any requirements for communal areas. He stated that the bedrooms and communal areas could average out so a larger bedroom could compensate for less communal areas and vice versa.

(11)       In response to Councillor Morris, the Planning Officer stated that there was no photo of the bathroom available but there was two bathrooms; one with a WC, sink and bath and another with just a WC and sink.

Debate and decision making process

(12)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 For, 1 Against and 2 Abstentions planning permission was granted.

121A.1RESOLVED – 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 and for the reasons set out in the report.