The Round Hill Society

7 Mayo Road

Details of planning application

Planning Application BH2025/00195 - Alterations to the existing building to insert 1no rooflight to the front roofslope and 2no rooflights to the rear roofslope and  | subdivision of the existing building to create 1no. self-contained flat (C3) at lower ground floor level and  | alter the layout of the existing small house in multiple occupation (C4) on the upper floors - was REFUSED on 27th June 2025.

The developer has now appealed against refusal
Click here to read the developer's appeal statement.

The Council's reason for refusal

The revised HMO layout would not comply with polices DM1 and DM7 of the City Plan Part Two regarding the standard of accommodation provided. Collectively and cumulatively, it would result in a materially poorer standard of accommodation for the small HMO, with the loss of the garden, and creation of smaller bedrooms, including introducing a restricted head height bedroom into the layout with poorer outlook for the sixth bedroom, compared to the existing layout. It is also noted that the proposed communal space as a single space would have a smaller floor area within the property than the existing space for the six residents.

Planning policies referenced in refusing the application;

• DM1 Housing quality, choice and mix
• DM7 Houses in multiple occupation.

9 public comments on the Council's planning register.

sample comment for more ideas.

The deadline for taking part in the appeal has now passed..

Description

The applicant wants to accommodate the 6 HMO tenants on the ground, upstairs and attic floors (the attic has little headroom) to create space for a separate flat for two tenants on the lower ground floor. The garden will go with the separate flat, so the 6 HMO tenants will end up without access to the garden as well as having a reduction in floor space.

Sample Comment

In section 5.4 of the appeal statement, the applicant argues:

Response:

The idea that no single person suffers worsening housing conditions—such as reduced floorspace or loss of access to a garden—because HMO residents are transient is misguided.

1. Transience does not eliminate harm: Even if a tenant only stays for a year, that year is lived under diminished conditions. A smaller room or lack of outdoor access directly affects health, wellbeing, and quality of life during their tenancy.

2. Harm is perpetuated across cohorts: While one individual may not witness the full trajectory of decline, each successive tenant inherits the worsened conditions. The result is not an absence of harm, but a revolving cycle of it.

3. Not all occupants are short-term: Many people live in HMOs for several years—students in three- or four-year programs, postgraduates, or low-income renters with limited alternatives. For them, worsening conditions are not abstract; they are experienced directly.

4. Duty of care remains constant: Landlords and policymakers cannot dismiss declining standards simply because tenants rotate. The ethical and legal responsibility to provide adequate living conditions persists regardless of turnover.

The revised HMO layout proposed for this application leaves the six HMO residents (whether they are existing or new tenants) with less floorspace and denies them the use of the garden. These losses are not erased by transience. Instead, they ensure a revolving door of students consistently exposed to worsened housing — making the harm continuous, not negligible.

There is no separate class for 'student' or short-term housing. The HMO would and therefore should be capable of habitation by six people (and their visitors) on a permanent, full-time basis. The applicant is not guaranteeing that it will be solely for short term, part-year and rotating tenants. The transience argument is deeply flawed, but seems to be an admission of overdevelopment/excessive intensification.

The 6-person HMO living/dining/kitchen over the living room of the basement flat living/dining room would result in excessive noise disturbance.

The loss of garden space access would be a material diminution in residential quality for the occupants of the HMO.

The 6 bed HMO will go from 3 WC's with 1 bath and 1 shower to only 2 WC's and 2 Showers- a material reduction.

There will be a loss of on-site cycle storage for the HMO in the front light well.

The applicant has not addressed the increase in refuse and recycling facilities.

I support Brighton and Hove Council's contention that the proposal would offer a materially poorer standard of accommodation and urge you to dismiss this appeal.