Two small HMOs at 1 And 1A Pembroke Crescent, Hove

“The Ground Floor HMO (C4 use) hereby approved shall only be occupied by a maximum of three (3) persons and the First and Second Floor HMO (C4 use) shall be occupied by a maximum of five (5) persons. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers and to comply with policies DM7 and DM20 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part Two.”

“The application seeks permission for the change of use of two flats (planning use class C3) to a three bedroom small house in multiple occupation (HMO)(planning use class C4) at ground floor level, and a five bedroom small HMO (C4) at first and second floor levels.”

“The application relates to a two-storey detached building, with accommodation within the roof level. The property is currently divided into a ground floor flat with three bedrooms, and a maisonette with five bedrooms across the first floor and converted roof space.”

“The property lies within the Pembroke and Princes Conservation Area. The site is subject to the city wide Article 4 direction removing Permitted Development rights for changes of use to small houses of multiple occupation.”

“BH2020/02754 Alterations to front boundary to create larger opening for driveway with vehicle crossover. Installation of electric car charge point. Refused 30.11.2020.”

“As noted above, the application site is not in an area which currently has more than 10% of properties within 50m radius being in HMO use or 20% of the wider neighbourhood area. While any additional HMOs may have the potential to increase the cumulative impact and harm to amenity with which they can be associated, in this instance the existing numbers of HMOs in the area is not enough to warrant refusal of the application on the grounds of potential amenity impact.”

“Conclusion and Planning Balance: 9.31. The principle of the change of use is considered acceptable and complies with policies CP21 and DM7. The change of use would not cause significant harm to the character of the area and would not substantially detract from the amenity of neighbouring properties. The development would not have a significant impact on the highway.”

“Transport: Verbal comments The proposed development would generate significant overspill parking in an area controlled by CPZ that is already at or near capacity. The applicant is advised that this application would currently be classed as car-free development and the LHA will seek to add it to the Council car-free properties’ register and advise that any future residents would be restricted from applying for parking permits.”

“No cycle parking on site has been proposed. There is available space on site therefore further details of cycle parking should be requested via condition.”

“In response to publicity, responses were received from ten (10) individuals, objecting to the application and raising the following issues: • Pressure on local services • Anti social behaviour • Number of HMOs in the area • Increase in noise • Impact on parking • Management of HMOs • Overdevelopment • Loss of family housing • Impact on property prices • Impact on conservation area…”

“This application was not called for discussion. The officer recommendation was therefore taken as having been agreed unanimously.”

“That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out below and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the following Conditions and Informatives:”

“Prior to first occupation of either of the small HMOs uses hereby approved, details of secure cycle parking facilities to the rear of the property, for the occupants of, and visitors to, the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be fully implemented and made available for use prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained for use at all times.”