Mews in the news...
*Spare a thought for pedestrians in Regent Hill as bus drivers enjoy a break on the pavement. This has recently been an increasingly tricky problem here and just before the junction on Upper North Street. Concerns include the redesign of the junction itself , malingering double decker buses parked on pavements and obstruction along the narrow accesses to Western Road. Has been drawn to attention of Ward Councillors and Bus Company.
* A Holiday let owner has appealed Council's refusal to grant change from C3 to Short Term Holiday Lets. Planning Inspectorate will decide this appeal and the closing date for comments is 20 March so very SOON. The appeal also seeks to rely on the recent precedent at 12 Marlborough Street where the Planning Inspector overturned Councils decision a year ago.
This AirBNB had been operating under the radar for 2 years until it came onto the Council's radar last March and the owner was required to apply for change of use. Planning consent was refused in September with 16 local resident objections but the lettings continued beyond Christmas into the Spring and an appeal has been lodged at the last minute.
We believe the proliferation of holiday lets is an ongoing problem and the sale of another Mews property very recently and the possibility that it too will be given over to AirBNB is extremely concerning. Please lend your support and register your objections.
The Appellants Case is shown below.
"The Council’s reason for refusal refers to Policy DM2 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan,
stating that the proposed change of use from C3 (dwelling house) to Sui Generis (short-term
visitor accommodation) would result in the loss of residential housing stock.
However, this interpretation does not reflect the reality of the property’s use. The property
was purchased as a second home for myself and my family, and it has always been used in
that capacity. When we are not in residence, we let the property on a short-term basis for
additional income.
The property is intensively let throughout the year with few exceptions
the owner visits only occasionally and screenshots of the Airbnb diary sent to the Planning Officer attest to this
If planning permission for Sui Generis use were to be refused, the
property would continue to be used in the same way—principally as a second home, with
occasional short-term letting within permitted limits. In either case, the property would not
contribute to the city’s permanent housing stock. Therefore, granting permission would not,
in practice, lead to any reduction in available residential housing.
Conversely, approval of the Sui Generis use would bring clear benefits to the local economy.
The property accommodates a significant proportion of overseas visitors (around 30%),
supporting the local tourism sector and acting as a net contributor to both the city’s and the
wider UK economy. Short-term visitors also bring direct expenditure to local shops, cafés,
restaurants, and attractions. We recommend specific local businesses to visitors—consistent
with the Council’s objectives for sustainable economic growth through tourism.
In addition to the economic activity generated by visitors in the local area, the rental income
is declared on my tax return every year and relevant tax paid.
The area is already very well served by multiple short holiday lets including family suitable accommodation with one such property backing onto the Mews and using the same parking facilities already
granted permission
A second property has just been sold and reportedly with short holiday let activity planned. This potentially means roughly a third of the ten inward facing properties would be visitor accommodation which is saturation level which reduces both amenity and negatively impacts the character of the Mews and removes usable family accommodation from local people.
We encourage recycling by visitors to the property and are in the process of adding an
electric vehicle charging station to the parking space. This is in line with Brighton and Hove’s
environmental policy.
Regarding the neighbour representations cited in the refusal:
● Location: One comment stated the property was located in Seven Dials; this is
factually incorrect. The property is within Marlborough Mews.
The appellants entry on AirBnb previously described it (erroneously) as such, possibly to deflect attention from its central location
● Parking: I respond promptly to any reports of parking concerns. In most cases, such
issues relate to general city-centre visitors parking in the mews rather than guests at
my property. The house has it’s own parking space as part of the property title.
Parking is not shared with neighbours.
Visitor and contractor vehicles are often mis parked, blocking pavements and access routes for elderly residents. Both residents in the square and the Company Secretary have written on numerous occasions with photographic evidence of parking problems to complain of blocking and damage to pavements due to poor oversight.
● Noise: I have installed a decibel monitoring device within the property to monitor
sound levels and proactively address any disturbance. Reports of being able to hear
minor sounds such as a bag unzipping through the party wall indicate an underlying
sound insulation issue rather than any unreasonable behaviour by guests.
Serious party type noise problems have gone without response from the owner and when neighbours reported they were told the battery was flat. The device is located in one area (living room) the detection is weak does not apply to bedrooms or outdoor spaces so is both unreliable and ineffectual
I have already agreed with the owner of the adjoining property to install additional
soundproofing along the shared wall, irrespective of the outcome of this appeal.
No such undertaking has been given
Finally, the property includes a downstairs toilet and step-free access, making it especially
suitable for elderly and mobility-impaired guests—an under-served demographic in the localshort-term accommodation market.
This property has a single WC downstairs lavatory and the bathroom is located upstairs. On the contrary the consequences of frequent poor parking by contractor changeover vehicles and visitors has degraded the access for the elderly mobility impaired who actually live in the square.
This is reflected in the property’s strong record of
positive guest feedback and its ranking within the top 3% of Airbnb listings in the area.
For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the proposed change of use would have no
detrimental impact on residential housing supply, would address local amenity
concerns, and would deliver tangible economic and social benefits to the local
community.
The noise problems have been consistent over two years of operation and the immediate neighbour (a tenant who has now left) compiled a detailed noise diary of incidents including a complaint to AirBNB to request a review of the legitimacy of the listing which was basically ignored had no effect and was ignored. Subsequently the owner of the property found long term tenants who were keen to take the property but who asked their deposit to be refunded on learnig that the previous tenant had a history of noise issues and the adjacent property owner had appealed the ruling by BHCC to refuse planning. Consequently the property has been taken off the market until a resolution can be found with consequent loss of accommodation and substantial financial pain for the owner.
The application is therefore consistent with the overall objectives of the
development plan and should be granted permission on appeal."