Agenda item - BH2019/0031-126 Wolseley Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use from existing single dwelling (C3) to a six bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4) including installation of rear decking and alterations to fenestration.

RECOMMENDATION – WOULD HAVE GRANTED

Ward Affected: Hollingdean & Stanmer

1.            Change of use from existing single dwelling (C3) to a six-bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4) including installation of rear decking and alterations to fenestration.

2.            The main considerations relate to the principle of the change of use, the standard of accommodation which the use would provide, impact on the neighbouring amenities and transport issues.

3.            The Members of the Planning Committee are requested to consider the application for change of use even though the applicant has submitted an appeal as the Committee’s view on the application will inform the Council’s case.

Public Speakers

4.            Council Tracey Hill, having stepped down as Chair of the meeting for this item, spoke to the committee. Ms Hill stated that the previous application had been refused and gone to appeal. The inspector considered the dormer window and rooflights to be excessive. This scheme seems very similar. The dormer would allow two rooms in the loft space and enable the C4 use. Please refuse as before.

Questions for Officers

5.            Councillor Dee Simson noted that the dormer window had been constructed under Permitted Development and had been granted a Certificate of Lawfulness.

6.            Councillor Daniel Yates was informed that a family residence is allowed to construct under Permitted Development.

7.            Councillor Dee Simson was informed that there would be 3 toilets, 2 baths/shower rooms with a ground floor communal space. The internal layout would be conditioned to ensure that the floor space of each room conformed to standard. It was noted the property would house seven persons.

8.            Councillor Carol Theobald was informed the accommodation in the?? roof was of a good standard.

9.            Councillor Gill Williams was informed that the application site was a terrace property with family homes adjoining.

Debate

10.         Councillor Simson considered that the impact on the neighbouring terrace properties would be considerable, and the loss of a family home is not good.

11.         The Committee were invited to vote on the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission.

Vote: For = 0, Against = 6, Abstain = 1. The officer recommendation was overturned. (Councillors Joe Miller, Phelim Mac Cafferty and Tracey Hill were not present).

Councillor Dan Yates proposed the application would have been refused, Councillor Dee Simson seconded, on the grounds of loss of amenity to neighbours, potential traffic impact; parking impact and material nuisance.

1.            The Committee were invited to vote on the motion that it would have refused the application against the officer’s recommendation for the reasons proposed by Councillor Yates and to authorise the Planning Manager to word the refusal on the reasons proposed.

12.         Following the vote to refuse the officer recommendation, a vote that the Committee would have refused the application was held.

13.         Vote: For = 6, Against = 0, Abstention = 1. (Councillors Joe Miller and Phelim Mac Cafferty not present).

Recorded Vote: Councillors: For: Williams, Theobald, Fishleigh, Shanks, Simson, Yates. Abstention: Hugh-Jones.

RESOVLED: The application WOULD HAVE BEEN REFUSED for the reasons proposed by Councillor Yates.