A five-bedroom family home can be converted into a seven-bedroom shared house after a developer won his appeal against the council’s refusal on appeal.
Brighton and Hove City Council refused the application in April for 5 Grafton Street from Hassocks-based Tom Evans, stating the plans were not of “sufficient quality”.
In its decision, the council planning department said: “The proposed communal space at basement level has restricted natural light, poor outlook, restrictive floorspace and a constrained layout which is considered substandard.
“This would lead to the provision of a communal living space, which would be detrimental to the future living standards of all residents.”
Mr Evans’ application agent PMR Architecture noted that the neighbouring houses 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are all grade II listed buildings although number five is not.
The area, part of the East Cliff Conservation Area, has few houses in multiple occupancy (HMO), with just eight out of 136 houses in the wider neighbourhood, which complies with council policy.
Mr Evans’ appeal agent Wilbury Planning argued the council was misinterpreting the application, which is for seven people, not eight, as the council raised as a concern in its statement.
Before operating as an HMO Mr Evans would have to secure a licence and specify the number of people living in the house, which he confirms would be seven.
On the issue with the basement, Mr Evans’ said: “If previous occupants of the dwelling had thought this space would not be conducive to being used as an integral habitable space in the form of the kitchen, then it would have been used for an alternative purpose at the time, but this was not the case.
“Using this area as communal space for the proposed HMO would not result in any further restricted natural light, outlook, floorspace or layout when compared to its previous use as a kitchen as part of the dwelling house.”
When granting the appeal, the planning inspector noted after visiting the site that the basement communal area did not feel oppressive and would provide “good quality communal living space”.
The inspector said: “Whilst noting the council’s comments in relation to the calculation of the amount of communal space and the limited outdoor amenity space associated with the appeal property, based on my observations of the space and taking account of the quality of the accommodation overall, I find that the communal living space and cooking facilities would be appropriate in size to the expected number of occupants.”
The inspector ordered a condition to make sure there was sufficient communal space and a limit of seven people in the HMO.
Mr Evans applied for, but was not awarded, costs against the council.
Ok BHCC get the building inspectors round there at each and every opportunity to ensure good standards are maintained and no sub-standard materials utilised or cutting corners and health and safety maintained. If the planning decision was so egregious, costs would have been awarded.
Another slumlord has entered the chat. Good luck to the residents
So what’s the plan for this place: student housing, a party house, or migrant accommodation? Well played, Labour, another community ruined. It will be your neighbours next. Whether in opposition or in government, you’re bad for the country.”
Planning permissions are apolitical.
Nonsense. If Labour actually wanted to pass laws to stop this, they easily could. Councillor Benjamin (Labour), quit making excuses for your party’s appalling history of wrecking communities across the country.
Planning operates under national legislation and inspectors assess appeals against policy tests, not party preferences. I actually agree the system needs tightening, and the new C5 class will help bring stronger controls over things like AirBnBs. On that, I think we’re closer in view than it first appears.
It won’t be student accommodation as the demand has fallen since Labour came to power. It won’t be a party house as this should have holidaylet and not residential or HMO permission and the council closes these down now if reported to planning enforcement. It will be for asylum seekers or people just looking for a room to rent.
There are plenty of mature people who need houseshares following divorces and other life events. It is not just students. Very few people can get on the housing ladder these days, not least those who’ve fallen off it, for one reason or another.
It’s a very good point, but I wonder if HMOs run by for-profit entities are the way forward? I’d rather something like a CIC or ALMO would manage co-living spaces, so we can be more confident profits are redistributed back into the city, rather than being lost to privatisation.
People have to live somewhere, old and young alike. Many older single people need a place to live, not just students and the in between generations, single living is not just about younger people.