Agenda item - BH2023/03155 - 30 Bodiam Avenue, Brighton - Full Planning

1.         The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee. The case officer updated the committee by informing them that two further objections had been received, however, they related to issues already raised.

2.         Ward Councillor Evans addressed the committee and stated that they objected to the application and noted that residents objected to students renting Houses in Multiple Occupancy (HMOs). There are a number of unregistered HMOs in the area, which is not reflected in the report. The community have expressed concerns relating to parking, noise, refuse collections and the impact of the HMO on the community. The councillor requested that the committee refuse the application.

3.         Paul Joyce addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the proposed HMO was small and complied with policy. The landlord has other properties and has maintained these to a high standard. The property adds to the housing stock and will be affordable and accessible. The application is in line with housing strategy and policy. It was considered that the HMO would not necessarily result in anti-social behaviour. A family of 5 or 6 could live in the property anyway. The committee were requested to approve the application.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.         Councillor Nann was informed that the application can only be assessed on lawfully registered HMOs, and it was not possible to go each house in the area and check who occupied each property.

5.         Councillor Lyons was informed that the maximum number of persons would be 6 or a new application would be required. It was noted that there are no parking restrictions in the area apart from on match days. The case officer stated that the transport team had raised no objections to the application and there was sustainable transport available nearby.

6.         Councillor Loughran was informed that more than 6 would require planning permission.

7.         Councillor Shanks was informed that there were two bathrooms, and the communal spaces meet space standards. It was noted that the house could be returned to a dwelling (planning use class C3) without an application provided the space standards were met. The article 4 Direction protects homes being changed to HMO and not from HMO to C3 use.

Debate

8.         Councillor Allen considered that the 5 to 6 people may have partners so more than 6 would occupy. It was noted that this was a local authority property bought under right-tobuy and now making a profit. However, the application is considered policy complaint. The councillor supported the application.

9.         Councillor Robinson considered they had to accept the application; however, they would like landlord licensing reactivated.

10.      Councillor Nann considered that a family home compared to an HMO was very different and could have a negative impact on the area. However, they considered that there was no way of refusing the application.

11.      Councillor Sheard considered that there were two ways to look at HMOs: to many they are an issue however, there is a dire housing shortage and a need to house young people.

12.      Councillor Lyons considered that some local authority housing is not in good condition, and selling council homes was acceptable. Parking is considered an issue in the area.

Vote

13.      A vote was taken, and by 8 to 1 against the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

14.      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 in the report.