Gardens & wildlife

Crescent Road 2014 signatures

Our detailed letter of objection

Dear Mr Huntley,

We, residents of Round Hill, are writing regarding application number BH2014/03343 “Prior approval for change of use from offices (B1) to residential (C3) to form 5 no self contained flats” with evidence to support the fact we believe the application should be REFUSED. Our reasons and comments around this are outlined below.

To convert the buildings to residential would require changes to the external appearance of the buildings, as outlined by the developer himself in application BH2014/00124, which made it clear that the following alterations would take place; Widened and re-sized windows and doors, new door openings, new cladding, new fencing and new bin store. The building are in such a poor state that alterations externally would be essential to create a residential environmental. This, together with potential new satellite dishes, TV aerials, boiler flues, extracts, meter cupboards etc would certainly materially affect the external appearance of the buildings, making it ineligible under the permitted development law.

The 1 site map that has been submitted with this application includes some buildings on the site only, and yet in the ‘design statement’ it states that the total site area is 1,066m2 – far more than the buildings alone (presumably it includes the land on the site also), so this is contradictory. The covering letter also states, when trying to clear up the mess of the addressing at the site that

“In summary, Building 28A refers to the property with the postal address of no. 28 Crescent Road whereas Buildings 28B, 28C, 28D, 28E and 28F refer to different parts of the property with the postal address of no. 28B Crescent Road.”

The letter also states that included in 28B Crescent Road are

  • Building 28A is the dwelling house to the site frontage
  • Building 28B is the “L” shaped office with the bridge at first floor level
  • Building 28C is the single storey office to the north of Building 28B)
  • Building 28D is the office to the south of Building 28B
  • Building 28E refers to the garage (not labelled on the plans)
  • Building 28F refers to the shed (not labelled on the plans)

The last 2 buildings (the garage and the shed), however, are not included in the 1 site map that was requested, so this again is contradictory. We know that the last use of the garage and the shed was not B1(a) so this should not be included in this application. It is unclear from the application exactly what space the developer is claiming for permitted development.

It is not clear in this application how this 313 sq metres of office floorspace (enough for conversions to 5 flats) has been totted up. The declarations attempt to prove what was occupied as B1(a) use in the period prior to 30th May 2013, but this does not measure up to 313 sq metres of actual office use during the qualifying period.

Given that JUST DEVELOPMENTS has changed its labelling system for describing the buildings it wants to convert in successive applications, yet they have not changed their wish to create 5 flats, which of all their successive applications is valid? It is very unclear.

The covering letter also suggests that the addressing on the leases that they have provided as evidence “be disregarded”, and yet the use class be regarded. I find it inappropriate that parts of a lease be regarded as legitimate and other parts not so, and this reinforces the need for further investigation (presumably with a lawful development certificate, as suggested by the council after the last ‘prior approval’ application).

The actual use of the building on or prior to May 2013 by The Sugar Hill Boutique was not B1(a). The Sugar Hill Boutique's lease was for B1 (not B1(a) specifically) and when Belton Rd resident Paul Bunkham emailed Pawel Przedpelski earlier this year to ask them what the functions/use of the company it was stated, and we quote:


"Hi Paul,

We left 28B Crescent Rd in Feb 2013. I don't know for sure but to my knowledge there were no tenants after us - it would be unlikely as the owner was trying to sell the property.

 It was used for storage of our stock and the fulfillment and distribution of orders to wholesalers, boutiques and customers. We have a separate retail shop in the Laines also.

 I don't have a copy of the lease unfortunately.
My knowledge of planning permission laws etc is very minimal but I wish you the best of luck with this issue.

Best regards,

Pawel Przedpelski, Sugar Hill Boutique"


This equates to B8 use class NOT B1(a). The other statement is not from Geo-Environmental (who were actually using part of the building), but from the company that leased it to them. We believe Geo Environmental’s activity to be more in line with A2 use than B1(a). 

The Council are currently only consulting 18 households for this application, instead of the circa 55 that were consulted for the last prior application for exactly the same plan. It is still unclear what area the developer is seeking permitted development for, but considering the history of the site, these persistent applications for the same development, resident’s reactions and objections, and the incredibly close proximity to households I think the Council should be consistent, and consult with the same residents it did before.


People are once again being misinformed on what they can object to on the council website when this application is being shown. This document links on the "what can you object to" PDF,  which shows all the same guidelines for a normal planning application, which is wrong again. This is very misleading and should be rectified to show the correct information.

Once again we would like to draw your attention to the huge objection to this development from local residents, and the wider community to this development, expressed with the numerous letters and emails of objection that you have received, plus the 158 signatures the petition about this attracted earlier this year - http://www.change.org/p/make-a-stand-against-permitted-development-legislation.

We urge the Council to use the amendments in the law as of April this year, as outlined below, as a basis to refuse this application




Paragraph 4.7 states that:


Prior approvals

4.7 In light of feedback on these provisions since they were enacted in 2013, the prior approval procedures in paragraph N of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order are amended to clarify that local planning authorities:

  • must only consider the National Planning Policy Framework to the extent that it is relevant to the matter on which prior approval is sought;
  • may attach conditions to grants of prior approval, as long as those conditions are relevant to the matter on which prior approval is sought;
  • may refuse the application if they are not satisfied that the proposed development qualifies as permitted development, or if they have insufficient information to establish whether the proposed development qualifies as permitted development; and
  • may invite further information from applicants relevant to the matters on which prior approval is sought or to the question of whether the proposed development qualifies as permitted development.


With best withes,

Residents of Round Hill


Signatures (as of Sunday 26th October 2014)


If you would like your name to be added as a signatory please let Sally know, by dropping her an email at sallyg_2000@hotmail.com with your full name and address.

Please note that 38 Round Hill residents have signed this letter.

As of Sunday 26th October 2014, shortly after the above letter has been circulated, we have:

Belton Road (10 signatures)

Crescent Road (7 signatures)

D'Aubigny Road (2 digantures)

Mayo Road (1 signature)

Princes Road (9 signatures)

Richmond Road (6 signatures)

Upper Lewes Road (1 signature)

Related items

This page was last updated by Ted on 27-Jan-2019
(registered users can amend this page)