The home site of the Round Hill Society, a community group of the residents of Round Hill in Brighton, England. The site contains information about the area, latest news and reflections on life in Round Hill.
This page is from the Round Hill Society archives which are available for historic interest. Please bear in mind when viewing archived pages that details may no longer be current.
Amount of accommodation reduced to 4no two bedroom houses.
BH2016/00862 has been approved
Part demolition and conversion of existing commercial buildings and erection of two new buildings to provide 4no two bedroom houses (C3) with associated landscaping. | 28A Crescent Road, Brighton, BN2 3RP (28 & Land Rear of including 28B, 28C & 28D Crescent Road Brighton)
Application BH2016/00862, registered on 29th March 2016 and amended several times (requiring two public consultations) was approved Brighton and Hove City Council's planning committee on 12th October 2016.
However, the site owner is now attempting to sell on the land / existing buildings + permission for four houses for £975,000 - over double the cost (£425,000) paid for this property in 2014.
Following the approval of BH2016/00862, a further planning application BH2017/03844 for Approval of Details Reserved by Conditions 7, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 16 (i) of BH2016/00862] was also approved on Tue 24 Apr 2018. These conditions relate to samples of hard surfacing materials, proposed windows and doors, materials to be used externally, details of all hard surfacing, boundary treatments and screening, proposed planting, submission of a scheme to provide that residents (apart from blue badge holders) have no entitlement to residents parking permits, details of timber access doors at Crescent Road frontage, documentation on previous and existing uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 and 3 and BS10175:2001. Click on BH2016/00862 and next to FILTER BY DOCUMENT TYPE, change "SHOW ALL" to "DECISION", then click the green button APPLY to view these conditions.
Was BH2016/00862 made as clear as this to the planning committee?
See http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-64385669.html
The Round Hill Society is grateful both to Chris Morley and Cllr Louisa Greenbaum for speaking against the application on behalf of the many residents affected by it.
Round Hill residents, especially those in Crescent Rd and Belton Rd whose homes and gardens surround this site, were very disappointed to see 4 houses approved, three occupying a narrow strip which has previously acted as a green lung with trees and vegetation (much has already been removed) helping to prevent overlooking between existing properties.
The elevated terrain on part of this strip, where a very small amount of green space will remain, compounds the problem of close overlooking since two of the new homes will have the use of this area as gardens.
The hope, now that such a high density has been permitted, is that neighbours will get on with one another, in spite of the tight space standards on this site. I felt that the individual instances of overlooking (relevant to savend local policy QD27) deserved more highlighting than they got at the planning meeting.
Members of the planning committee did question the developer's agent about the new front gate (claimed by the applicant as a reference to the site's history) and expressed concerns about access for disabled and emergency services, though this line of questioning is usually answered.
I noted that the question as to whether a car-free development is sustainable in this location, was not raised.
It was unfortunate that the application got pushed to the penultimate one on the agenda of a meeting lasting from 2pm to nearly 9pm. Clearly, people want to go home as the evening proceeds, though time was given when individual members of the planning committee supplied leads.
Absence of any debate on the application
The Chair's invitation to debate the application did not result in any such leads.
This was not entirely down to time. Even in the final hour of a seven hour meeting, most members (though a few had departed) showed considerable stamina and willingness to take time. I felt that the absence of debate was equally a consequence of
My own hope was that the very design concept, which resulted in such difficult drawings to read, would be recognised as flawed and that the architects would be told to go "back to the drawing-board", reduce the amount, and to refrain from using poorly sited sheds and add-on sprawl as the footprints for proposed new homes.
The key problem with BH2016/00862 is the applicant’s concept of the scheme as a “conversion of an urban infill site from a derelict commercial / light industrial use into residential” . This misleading description is offered as a justification for using the footprints of poorly sited add-ons (annex / garage / shed) as the templates for homes. See The Round Hill Society's letter of objection for more on this.
The majority of members took the view that "residential" would be better than "commercial" or "open space" on a site where structures had already been untidily erected. 7 FOR; 1 AGAINST; Others LEFT THE MEETING or ABSTAIN.
Summary of recent amendments (Sep 2016)
taken from Sally Wright's email, but see them for yourself by selecting the documents tab on the Council's planning register entry for BH2016/00862 and opening recent documents (posted between July and Sep 2016)
The above amendments still leave the application wanting as they do not remove the main concerns voiced in the objections submitted to date:
BH2016/00862 before above changes
Instead of 3 houses + 2 flats (refused last year), the 2016 application is for 4 houses. There is some reduction in window area of the proposed houses, but canted windows and a sunken garden - common signs of overdevelopment - are still offered to address the problem of overlooking.
Read objection 1 and objection 2 from Belton Rd residents
objections from Crescent Rd and The Round Hill Society
The previous reasons for refusal bear reading again, since the new proposal fails to make more than a token response to them. This is disappointing and somewhat surprising in the absence of an appeal against refusal.
The Round Hill Society is grateful to those residents who have already communicated their concerns. Feedback from immediate residents includes:
Previous grounds for refusal BH2015/03013
This page was last updated by Ted on 03-Nov-2021