A company’s application to change a family home in Brighton into a holiday let has been turned down.
Neighbours sent 37 objections to the plans submitted by the Star Property Group for 29 Camelford Street, Brighton.
The Hove company, run by Benjamin Keith, 43, submitted a retrospective planning application to Brighton and Hove City Council for a “change of use” from “dwelling house” to short-term holiday let.
Neighbours complained about noise and anti-social behaviour in their letters of objection and said that holiday lets were empty for much of the week.
One objector who has lived in the street for 25 years said: “Our small, friendly, residential community has suffered immeasurably by the number of homes bought on a whim by greedy, ruthless landlords, pushing up rents and denying families a right to a decent home.
“Many residents who experienced a strong sense of community and cohesion on this street have been forced to sell over the years and move away from a much-loved Brighton street as they can no longer tolerate the noise and anti-social behaviour.”
Many neighbours referred to a fire in July last year when a cigarette butt thrown from another holiday let, in Manchester Street, sparked a serious fire in an empty “party house” in Camelford Street. The blaze also damaged a family’s home.
Star Property Group said that Brighton’s holiday industry needed more outlets for overnight stays.
In the planning application, the company said: “The Brighton and Hove Visitor Accommodation Study Update 2018 also emphasises the need to attract hotel products and brands to Brighton that will help to attract new markets to the city and strengthen its competitive position as a business and leisure tourism destination.
“Hotels, holiday lets, budget boutique hotels and aparthotels all provide a required mix to attract the pre-family couples, business traveller and leisure guests to our brilliant city.”
Council officials rejected the application because it would lead to the loss of a residential home, contrary to planning policy.
There was also no “substantive justification” for the loss of a residential building.
The council said in its decision: “The change of use to holiday let would result in a significant adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers due to the increase in the intensification of the use of the property and increased noise and disturbance.”
Star Property Group was approached for comment. The company has the right to appeal against the decision.
They need to ban air B&B to get any kind of a grip on this stuff.
Absolutely right
“Star Property Group said that Brighton’s holiday industry needed more outlets for overnight stays.”
In the last month, according to data scraped by AirDNA, there are currently 4,500 active rental properties in the Greater Brighton area. Of theses, over 500 years of time of these properties have been empty, in the past 1-3 months collectively.
So no, Brighton’s holiday industry evidently, does not need more outlets for overnight stays.
This data is not accurate. Most properties have multiple listings often even in one platform as this allows you more exposure and more flexibility in how you set your pricing. It is simply nonsense to take data from places like AirDnA and extrapolate it to produce these numbers.
A valid point regarding data accuracy, however, these figures were used using the most conservative numbers. Put simply, a big number is still a big number, and even considering duplication, which I’ve managed to take out of multi-platforms by looking only at AirBNB, and AirDNA failing to omit all duplication, we can certainly consider there are a large number of holiday lets, and still can come to the reasonable conclusion that, the strongest evidence-base we have shows that Brighton’s holiday industry, does not need more outlets for overnight stays.
I welcome this decision as I agree we need to stop the change of use from ‘dwelling house to short-term holiday let’. There are just as many people on the housing list as there are AirBnBs and we need to seriously look at this and put in a plan to effectively deal with it.
Robert
Kemptown LibDems
Yes agreed.
In our road there are 40pc Airbnb. These deprive us of neighbors (who can the postman leave a parcel with?). The houses are either empty or noisy. We all like a party but not 5 nights a week every week throughout the summer – for the guests its once a year but for the residents it’s all year.
These are sometimes part of a group of properties owned by the same investor. They are running unlicensed hotels without having to adhere to the safety standards and requirements of good order that apply to real ones.
If Brighton needs more hotel beds, then it should stop Airbnb because it is destroying the business of the small family guest houses and boutique hotels.
Do you seriously think these landlords will let their property in prime residential areas to people on housing benefit? Goodbye commercial rents to the council as well as many shops and local restaurants that pay rent to the council will also close if they lose the revenue from AirBnBs and we just push tourists in a city designed for tourism with tens of thousands of jobs dependent on this industry to Spain. Mind you Lib Dem’s aren’t that bright. You were the ones proposing a car park be put under grade 1 listed squares in Brighton.
Nobody is suggesting that short term lets should all be given over to social housing. But they certainly could be used to house regular renters and owner occupiers. We also had a thriving tourism industry before the explosion in short term lets. You’re just bitter as you’re clearly an Airbnb landlord.
The reason they are not being used to house regular renters is firstly many would not qualify for an HMO licence but most importantly the new legislation that is coming out makes it almost impossible to rent to normal tenants. Removal of section 21, EPCs these properties will never meet. This area has always benn noisy. It has a pub in the road and at the top of the road and a gay outdoor party bar at the bottom of the road. It has not been the kind of road traditionally people really wanted to live in unless deaf. The best bet for this landlord is to try and get a contract to house asylum seekers.
Oh I don’t know, if all second homes were turned over to long term accommodations, at reasonable rents. That must go a long way to reducing homelessness. Having a roof over your head should always be first priority over holiday let’s.
Agreed. Why should anybody buy to rent long-term now. Landlords can’t get their own properties back- all their rights eroded hence changing to short term lets which is much more work. One minute they are public enemy No 1-next- penny dropped- necessary. Totally lambasted by media and no balance in the argument. These figures are way off plus it’s STR not Airbnb. Airbnb aren’t the only players. Sometimes there aren’t enough hotels and they are too dear for families.
Excellent news. The question now: how many properties in B&H operating as holiday lets require planning permission but have not applied?
None as it is not a legal requirement to apply for this. Legislation is coming through at the moment that may change this but this one may reopen on appeal and no one in Camelford street will ever be able to sell their houses as this will now come up in all the searches and prospective buyers warned about buying a property in this road.
Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
I agree with the post by Nige. I live in the same area and when we first moved in, our neighbours were nurses. Some years later we realised those flats had been turned into holiday lets one by one with no fanfare and certainly no planning permission – just a website. Should it be that easy?
Neither is the proliferation of ‘airBnB’ style lets fair competition to the small B&B owners around here who, I imagine, have far more regulations to comply with.
This wouldn’t happen nowadays. Have you seen the legislation landlords have to face. This is why they are now selling up or pulling out of the rental market. Big round of applause for lobby groups like Acorn. As for regulations they should be operating under the same requirements as B&Bs and the fire department etc do check this. There will no doubt be some terrible operators and this house sounded like it was certainly badly managed. However, not adhering to fire, and all the other legislation is something I am sure most are adhering to as these properties are not normally owned by slum landlords.
How many of these holiday let’s pay business rates?
The real issue is that Airbnb has expanded massively from its original beginnings of people paying to stay in someone’s spare bedroom short term. It was a fantastic idea that caught on, worked well and still works well for people who ‘Airbnb’ in their own homes. I have airbnbed a spare bedroom and bathrom in my own home for the last four years and never had a single issue. It doesn’t take anything away from the local rental market, and because Airbnb hosts are on the premises, there were very few noise issues. The problems emerged when Airbnb moved away from that core concept and expanded into the short term let market. Local residents have a right to a peaceful life in their own home, but with no host present these ‘party’ houses have become out of control. Also, the Airbnb short term let market puts huge pressure on the local rental market. Some landlords have discovered that they can make much more money through Airbnb. I also have two one bedroom flats that I let long term, but I choose not to Airbnb them because I feel strongly that local people need somewhere to live, and I would also never inflict it on the other occupants and neighbours of the buildings my flats are in. The rental market in Brighton & Hove is very lively and a well-maintained flat will command a good rent, so there really is no need for landlords to resort to Airbnb …. apart from pure greed.
Yes, it does you could put this room on spare room instead and it would get snapped up in a day. I think people that rent bedrooms should be enhanced DBS checked as you have no idea whose house you are staying in and often young students book this type of accommodation. Also, renting spare rooms carries none of the legislative problems that letting property on AST causes.
Harsh.
Agree completely – very well put and I commend your principles for not going down that route.
My reply was to the poster Annie, btw – as it may not have been clear. In my personal experience the issue has been ‘landlords’ as in buy-to-let landlords. They haven’t ‘pulled out’ of the rental market because of legislation – goodness knows we’d welcome more properties on the market if they sold up – they’ve simply switched to something more lucrative – ie ‘holiday lets’.
Hi all,
The shift to holiday lets from long term let’s has been largely due to the govt restricting mortgage interest costs as an allowable expense for long term let properties. This has meant many properties are simply not profitable to the long term let owner hence the switch.
Holiday lets are an important part of the accommodation tourist mix and bring millions of pounds in associated revenue to areas of the city, including residential areas and residential pubs and restaurants who benefit, particularly from mid week trade. Typically businesses in these residential areas would not receive tourist income. I do believe (because of govt long term let policies) that there is a need to restrict holiday rentals but certainly not to eliminate them.
Holiday lets provide an essential service to families and low income households who simply cannot afford to stay in hotels.
Renting out a room in your house to paying guests requires exactly the same fire safety requirements as a self contained unit. Including the need for a fire risk assessment, likely interlinked smoke alarms, emergency lighting, 30 min fire proof doors, protected escape route.
Holiday rentals help to distribute tourism income into the local community and away from the multi national hotel chains.
Hotels and B&Bs are no more entitled to protection against competition than any other business. I agree, there should be a level playing field in terms of fire safety, but a hotel and a holiday rental are 2 separate entities and difficult to compare.
There is a need to balance the accommodation mix, and this definately includes increasing standards across the board. Demonising holiday lets and overly restricting them will push tourists and millions of pounds of annual income away from our community and to other cities.
In my opinion there is a real need to limit the volume of holiday rentals in the city but to see them as an important part of our cities tourist plan.
In the same way you very likely enjoy your Spanish villa holiday or Italian apartment rental you can appreciate the value to the tourists visiting our city and be a little more understanding and welcoming of Brighton’s holiday let properties.
X
Another Airbnb landlord putting their wallet first and defending the indefensible
From reading all the comments it would seem that there is a case for both arguments. There is a need for viable holiday rentals and that need is commercially based, however there should be a limit as housing needs for all ranges of income should be met by local authorities as well as private landlords. The legislation pushing private landlords out of the market must be considered in trying to meet a fair balance, and perhaps there should be a greater investigation of the rules for short term holiday lets. Lets not forget that all people own properties for varying reasons and understanding such needs has always been left to commercial and personal requirements. How this can be balanced is the question which needs resolving