Agenda item - BH2022/01324 - 118A St James's Street, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.    None

Debate

3.    Councillor Childs expressed concerns regarding the room standards, which were deemed acceptable by officers, however they were against policy. There are three Houses in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) in a row, however, officers note that in this case there are commercial uses at the ground floor level so the policy can be applied more flexibly. The floor space is below minimum standards and oppressive. The communal space is less than ideal, there is no cycle store and concerns have been raised by neighbours. The councillor did not consider the quality high enough.

4.    Councillor Yates considered the business on the ground floor was not enough reason to allow three HMOs in a row, the proposals were not City Plan Part Two (CPPT) compliant and the improvements to the building were not good enough to mitigate the below standard accommodations.

5.    The case officer noted that the three HMOs in a row were acceptable under the supporting text in the CPPT policy as the properties were traditional houses and the policy allows for flexibility. Larger rooms were not possible in this listed building as the loading bearing walls could not be removed. The new sash windows, railings and roof were all acceptable.

6.    Councillor Janio stated they were against the application.

7.    Councillor Shanks considered the improvements should be made anyway and did not support the application.

Vote

8.    A vote was taken, and by 6 to 1, and 1 abstention, the committee did not support the officer recommendation to grant planning permission. (Councillor Moonan took no part in the vote or decision making process).

9.    Councillor Janio proposed a motion to refuse the application as it was against CPPT policy. The motion was seconded by Councillor Yates.

Vote

10. A vote was taken and Councillors Janio, Childs, Yates, Hugh-Jones, Barnett, Theobald, Shanks and Littman voted to refuse the application. (Councillor Moonan took no part in the vote or the decision making process).

11. RESOVLED: Contrary to DM7(2)(c) as would lead to a continuous frontage of three or more HMOs, for which an exception is not considered to be warranted.