A landlord’s application to turn two shared houses from small to large houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) has been approved on appeal.
Brighton and Hove City Council originally refused the plans by Tangerine Property (Sussex) Ltd to extend into the roofs of 90 and 92 Southall Avenue, Bevendean, to create eight-bedroom houses, up from six.
The council refused the application in May last year, saying that when 92 Southall Avenue was granted permission for a change of use from a family home to an HMO on appeal, it took the number of shared houses above 10 per cent within a 50 metre radius.
As a result, it would “not meet the aims of the policy which seeks to maintain mixed and balanced communities”.
Tangerine Property (Sussex) Limited, owned by Terry Mole and Marta Markiewicz, both 48, said that there were no new HMOs and the density would not change.
The original application said that there was also no sandwiching of a private home between two HMOs and no continuous frontage of three HMOs, making it compliant with council planning policy.
Brighton and Hove City Council said that increasing the number of occupants from 12 to 16 would affect the balance of the community.
But the planning inspector said that adding two more occupants to each house did not affect the density.
The planning inspector said: “The council raises no concerns with the design and appearance of the proposed development, the standard of accommodation, the impacts on neighbours or sustainable transport. I have no reason to take a different view.
“Although I have noted the comments from interested parties regarding noise, parking, light spill, overlooking and a loss of privacy, no substantive evidence has been presented on these matters and, based on the information presented, they do not form grounds to dismiss the appeal.
“I have been provided with photos of upended bins outside the appeal site. However, the appellant has stated the bins were upended after particularly windy conditions and I note the appeal includes the creation of bin stores to the front garden to prevent this happening again.”
Look at the state of the frontage, unkempt and un-maintained, purely profit driven. So many of the frontages of HMO’s in the area are a real eyesore and bring the entire neighbourhood down, where once there was a sense of pride. Parking on verges & pavements and the damage it does to both. Driving up The Avenue and Southhall and I am sure many other streets taken over by large scale studentification have destroyed the feel of the area. There should be a stipulation that either Landlords are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance or this responsibility fall under the remit of the renter, where able. Stop making our communities look like slums.
This administration is a joke. They slammed the Greens for not rolling out HMO requirements quickly enough in poorer areas but now that they’re in power, they’re approving massive, antisocial housing developments right next to family homes in social deprivation. Labour clearly doesn’t care.
Read the article again.
Paragraph 2
“Brighton and Hove City Council originally refused the plans …”
The council was then overruled by a planning inspector.
I’m all for blaming the council when they get things wrong but let’s not blame them for decisions they didn’t take.
Labour promised us that all these new student flats would allow new families to move into vacated hmos. It didn’t happen did it. Labour lie and lie and lie.
Maybe Labour (also in charge of the planning inspectors) could actually protect our residential areas.
Rob, a few important corrections:
Planning inspectors are not part of the Labour Party. They’re national civil servants appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, an executive agency of the UK Government. Local councils, even Labour-led ones, have no control over their decisions.
In this case, Brighton & Hove City Council refused the development, and it was the Planning Inspector who overruled that refusal. You’re blaming Labour councillors for a decision they actively opposed.
On HMOs: yes, Labour previously criticised delays in tighter HMO rules, and since taking office, they’ve been progressing Article 4 Direction reviews. But the relationship between purpose-built student flats and HMO availability is complex and gradual; it doesn’t result in instant change. That doesn’t mean it’s a lie; it means outcomes take time, especially in a constrained city like Brighton.
The Labour government controls the framework the inspectors operate under and could prevent eight bed hmos next to working families. Same old Labour blaming everyone else and never taking any responsibility and not protecting families. Vote Labour and get eight bed hmos next to your family home. God knows who your next neighbour will be.
Rob
The article clearly stated these are already HMOs with six rooms each.
And you need to realise not every HMO is filled with students,
Many are occupied by young professionals who just want a quiet life.
The Bevendean and other local primary schools’ numbers keep dwindling, there is less and less a sense of community as student landlords do not upkeep their properties and most do just the bare minimum required, and family homes keep getting bought by greedy landlords who have no interest in the way they are ruining the community or the noise that the students put the local neighbours under.
Yet, under this labour council, approval after approval is given to student HMOs. Because the councillors don’t live in the area or next to students, they couldn’t care less. Look at the state of Coldean and Moulsecoomb too.