Agenda item - BH2023/00481 - 26 Glebe Villas Hove - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.       Councillor Sankey submitted a speech read out by the Democratic Services officer: Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMOs) represent a significant and growing proportion of the mix of housing in the city and make an important contribution to the housing on offer. The councillor had concerns regarding the application for a six bedroom small house in multiple occupation (C4). Multiple representations from residents. The six proposed bedrooms are too many for a house of this size. The change of use could allow 12 people with inadequate communal areas, especially cooking and bathroom/showering facilities. The councillor was concerned that condition requiring a maximum of six persons, was difficult to enforce. City Plan Part 2 is clear that (a) where additional bedrooms are created in conversions of existing buildings, these will be expected to meet the internal space standards set out in Policy DM1 Housing Quality, Choice and Mix and (b) well sized, proportioned and equipped communal areas and adequate bathroom and cooking facilities should be provided, relative to the expected number of occupants. If there were six residents, the communal living/dining room space only just meets the recommendation that 4 square metres should be provided per person. The conservatory is clearly intended for overspill and policy is clear that this should not be the case. The key point is that as soon as there are 7,8 or even possibly 12 residents, this property is overcrowded, negatively impacting those living there and other residents of Glebe villas. The councillor was also concerned that there will be insufficient parking spaces for the proposed HMO inhabitants.

3.       Andrew Robinson addressed the committee as an objecting neighbour and stated that the street had existing noise and disturbance from a HMO, and this damaged the health of neighbours. The space standards have not been met. The committee were requested to refuse the application as there were many objectors. The development is contrary to City Plan policy CP21 as it will damage local amenities.

4.       Steve Leung addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that they had grown up in the street so was not a property developer as claimed. The use classes C3 and C4 were for flexible use and there would not be 12 residents in the property. Only 2 noise complaints over the last 6 years had been received in relation to the adjacent HMO also within their ownership and they had been dealt with. The property is for 6 residents only and CP21 supports the use. The change would mean there are only 1.4% HMOs in the area, and 20% is allowed for HMOs. The application is in line with policy.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.       Councillor Pumm was informed that whether the rents were affordable was not a planning consideration.

6.       Councillor Nann was informed that the plausibility of the scheme was not a planning consideration. It was noted that the space standards on the plans were acceptable, and if they were made smaller, then enforcement action could be taken.

7.       Councillor Shanks was informed that the space standards were met, and the property would be limited to 6 persons.

8.       Councillor Loughran was informed that the scheme was considered under policy DM1 and considered acceptable in terms of space standards. It was noted that Building Control would check the accessibility if relevant.

9.       Councillor Earthey was informed that the first floor fire escape and the thickness of the dividing walls was a matter for Building Control.

10.      Councillor Allen was informed that there was no change in the provision of parking; two spaces were provided.

11.      Councillor Loughran was informed that the applicant can change between use classes C3 and C4, however, at the end of ten years the class would be defined as the use at that time.

Debate

12.      Councillor Shanks considered there was no reason to refuse the application as it complied with policy. The Councillor supported the application.

13.      Councillor Allen considered the application inappropriate and was an over development of the site. The councillor was against the application.

14.      Councillor Nann considered the application would have a negative impact on the amenities of the neighbours. The councillor was against the application.

15.      Councillor Earthey considered the application an over development of the site.

Vote

16.      A vote was taken, and by 1 to 6 the committee voted against the officer

recommendation.

17.      Councillor Nann proposed the application be refused on the grounds of impact on local amenities, over development due to the number of people in the property, and noise nuisance contrary to policy DM20. The motion was seconded by Councillor Earthey. It was agreed that the final wording would be agreed with the Planning Manager.

Vote

18.      A recorded vote was taken, and Councillors Allen, Hamilton, Nann, Pumm, Earthey and Loughran voted to refuse, and Councillor Shanks voted against the refusal.

19.      RESOLVED: The Committee voted to refuse the application on the grounds of impact on local amenities, over development and noise nuisance contrary to policy DN1. It was agreed that the final wording would be agreed with the Planning Manager.