Agenda item - BH2020/02524 -Top Floor Maisonette, 20 Bloomsbury Place, Brighton- Full Planning

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: East Brighton

Change of use from a three bedroom maisonette (C3) to a three bedroom small House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (C4)

(1)              It was noted that an in-depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which also showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development. The main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the change of use, the standard of accommodation to be provided, the impact on neighbouring properties and transport issues. Due to the current pandemic although it had not been possible to undertake a physical site visit an assessment had been made based on the submitted documents and streetview imagery of the site which was considered sufficient to assess the suitability of the proposal.

(2)              The application site was not in an area which currently had more than 10% of properties within a 50m radius in MHO use. Whilst any additional HMO could have the potential to increase the cumulative impact and harm to amenity in this instance the existing number of HMOs in the area was not enough to warrant refusal of the application.

Speakers

(3)              Ms Mullally spoke as a neighbour and on behalf of local objectors stating that the street was very narrow and acted as a channel for noise, a number of residents worked from home, this had increased during the pandemic and were already adversely affected by any noise from HMOs nearby. This use would exacerbate that.

(4)              Councillor Platts spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor. There were already a number of HMOs in the vicinity some of which gave rise to noise and other nuisance. This would reduce the availability of family homes in the area and could cause noise nuisance due to lack of soundproofing. Traditionally noise nuisance had occurred due to noise breakout between buildings which had not been intended as flats. One of the bedrooms did not appear to meet the appropriate space standards and overall it was considered that the application would be contrary to the Article 4 Direction.

(5)              Mr Giles spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application stating that the proposed scheme was modest, it was not anticipated that it would give rise to greater noise nuisance than if used as a family home and had been carefully designed to mitigate any adverse impact on neighbouring dwellings

(6)        Councillor Fishleigh asked the objector whether the bathroom had been converted into a bedroom and she confirmed she believed that it had

Questions of Officers

(6)              Councillor Theobald enquired regarding the dimensions of the third bedroom, regarding the location of the bathroom and whether/what soundproofing arrangements had been put into place. It was explained that in this instance sound proofing was considered to be counter- productive and a slightly smaller bedroom was considered to be outweighed by a larger communal living space.

(7)        Councillor Williams also enquired regarding bath/shower room arrangements and other internal reconfiguration which had taken place and it was explained that the proposed layout was considered to make the most effective use of the space. The Planning History of the space was also explained. The units would be advertised as single bedrooms with shared amenity space.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)        Councillor Theobald stated that she considered that the third bedroom would be very small with limited circulation space.

(9)        Councillor Fishleigh stated that in her view conversion of a bathroom into a bedroom was unacceptable as was the scheme overall.

(10)      Councillor Williams stated that in her view the proposed scheme bordered on packing them in like sardines and the fact that 10% HMOs were permitted in any given area did not mean that they had to be.

(11)      Councillor Yates concurred in that view and considered that the changes being made to the layout would impact on the character of the unit in any event

(12)      Councillor Shanks stated that she could not see any reasonable grounds for refusal.

(13)      Councillor Osborne stated that he could see arguments for and against grant of planning permission and remained undecided.

(14)      Councillor Littman, the Chair, stated that national space standards were intended as a guide rather than being absolute, that all schemes had to be judged on their individual merits and that in this instance he considered the scheme to be acceptable.

(15)      An initial vote was taken as to whether Members of the Committee were minded to refuse consideration of the application on the grounds  The 8 Members present voted 2 to 3 with 3 abstentions against that and the proposal that the application be refused was lost. A further vote was then taken as to whether Members wished to defer consideration of the application. A vote of 3 to 3 with 2 abstentions was taken. On the Chair’s casting vote that was lost. A further final vote was then taken on the substantive officer recommendations contained in the report. On a vote of 3 to 3 with 2 abstentions Planning Permission was granted on the Chair’s casting vote.

71.3      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 also set out in the report.