By Huw Oxburgh, BBC-funded Local Democracy Reporter
Eastbourne councillors have approved plans for shared housing in Meads.
On Tuesday (December 10), the borough council’s planning committee approved proposals to create an eight-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) in Meads Street.
While the scheme had been recommended for approval, neighbours argued it would harm the Meads Conservation Area and be unsuitable.
What did opponents say?
Dennis Scard, a spokesman for the Meads Community Association had urged councillors to refuse the application.
He said: “Whilst it seems that in the past the property has been used as an unofficial seven-room HMO, with the withdrawal of Brighton University from Meads there is no longer a valid reason for an HMO in Meads Street, which is in the heart of the Meads Conservation Area.
“The council admits that this building has operated without a necessary licence for a number of years. The building was let to Brighton University students and if there was — and there was — any antisocial behaviour it was taken up with the university.
“Having operated unofficially, the reward seems to be to approve a change of use from a single residential dwelling to a HMO with an additional room, making a total of eight [bedrooms].
“Planning officers state that the HMO will be limited to only eight residents. They and I know that once this is granted, they will not be able to enforce this condition and there will be little control on who stays there.”
Similar concerns were raised by ward councillor Robert Smart (Con), who highlighted how neighbours said they had been experiencing antisocial behaviour associated with the property.
Some members of the committee also took issue with the proposals, raising concerns around the layout of the building and the enforceability of any conditions the council could impose. The HMO is on the second, third and fourth floors of the building.
What did supporters say?
Others, however, raised concerns about this approach and stressed the need for housing with the town.
Liberal Democrat councillor Teri Sayers-Cooper (Lib Dem) was among those in favour. She said: “We do need properties in the town. We know, we all know, we’ve all been through this … that we do not have enough housing in this town.
“We know it costs a lot of money and that people just can’t get on any ladder whatsoever. We know that we have people living in temporary accommodation. We know that we really struggle with housing. So I think one extra [bedroom] … is not going to have any significant difference from what it is currently.
“I get concerned that people have this idea that people who live in HMOs are all bad news. They really aren’t. I’ve lived in HMOs with really nice people where there has been no antisocial behaviour, people have got along with each other, they’ve got along with people in the neighbourhood and I think it is really reprehensible to suggest that anybody who lives in HMOs are going to cause trouble.”
What did planning officers say?
In their report, officers had noted how the property had been in-use as a seven-bedroom HMO for a number of years already (although they also confirmed this use had not been “lawfully established”). In light of this, they concluded the use of a property as an HMO “is not considered to impact upon amenity in terms of noise or nuisance”.
Officers had also argued the conversion would not harm the conservation area, as no external works are involved with no physical change to the presentation of the property at street level.
The committee gave planning permission with four votes in favour to two against.
