Home
About
Community
Planning
Gardens & wildlife
History
Links

Daubigny Rd and R H Crescent

Planning inspector S J Papworth from The Planning Inspectorate has DISMISSED the appeals against refusal of: 

  1. planning permission for BH2016/00752 - Erection of 1no three bedroom dwelling (C3) incorporating alterations to boundary wall and external alterations to existing. Appeal Case Number: 3171388
  2. listed building consent for BH2016/00753 - External alterations including repair works, alterations to boundary wall including installation of a new gate, reinstatement of cast iron window guards to second floor windows, alterations to fenestration and associated works. Appeal Case Number: 3171393

In his decision dated 7th August 2017, the inspector concluded that 21. whilst the significance of designated heritage assets would be harmed, the level of this harm would be at the lower end of the long 'less than substantial' scale and the public benefits would outweigh that harm as provided for in the (National Planning Policy) Framework.

22. However, the now nearer proximity of the rear wall to the only part of the garden available to the occupiers of the second floor flat at 103 Roundhill Crescent would cause harm to the outlook from the garden and the wall at a higher level would appear intrusive and overbearing. Whilst not identified by the Council, the risk of privacy being compromised adds to the conclusion that the rear of the proposed dwelling would be harmful in the terms set out in Policy QD27 and would not be of the standard sought in the Framework. For the reasons given above it is concluded that Appeal A for planning permission should be dismissed.

23. In the absence of the benefits that had been weighed in the balance with regard to the harm to the listed ‘bungaroosh’ wall, the proposed work would fail to accord with Policies HE1 and HE6 or the stated sections of the 1990 Act and the work that is the subject of the listed building appeal should not be permitted. For the reasons given above it is further concluded that Appeal B for listed building consent should fail.

Since 2014, there have been three planning applications to erect a house in this sensitive position, causing great concern to neighbours as well as residents who feel that a very densely populated conservation area with no public parks, recs, woodlands etc needs to preserve its green vistas and long views to neighbouring hills.

101 Round Hill Crescent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The long view (pictured above) has got a reprieve, but only because the rear of the dwelling proposed in application BH2016/00752 is judged by the planning inspector to risk compromising the privacy of the occupiers of the second floor flat at 103 Roundhill Crescent.

If there are features which residents feel define the amenity of our conservation area, there is an urgent need to ensure that Brighton and Hove Council writes them into The Round Hill Character Statement so that they can be given weight in planning decisions. Our Character Statement was last revised in 2005.

 

 

Reasons for the refusal

BH2016/00752

  • The proposed development would represent garden cramming that would remove the historic view and gap in the Conservation Area.
  • The proposal would have an adverse impact on the Listed Building and the Roundhill Conservation Area.

The development is therefore contrary to policies HE1 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and policies CP12 and CP15 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One.

  • The proposed development would represent an unneighbourly form of development that would be overbearing and oppressive for the neighbouring occupiers.
  • In addition, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in a loss of sunlight for the occupiers of 103 Roundhill Crescent and 4 D'aubigny Road.

As such the proposal would have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity and is contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

BH2016/00753

  • In the absence of an acceptable scheme for the development of the site, the demolition of parts of the historic wall would result in loss of historic fabric and form and a gap in the boundary of 101 Roundhill Crescent harmful to the character and appearance of the listed wall and the setting of 101 Roundhill Crescent.

The scheme is considered contrary to policy HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and policy CP15 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One.

Links to The Council's previous grounds for refusing new-build on this valued open space

The appellant's reasons for the appeal

If you click on BH2016/00752 and then the DOCUMENTS tab, you will find documents from the appellant, including a 19-page document arguing her case to build the house. The basis of the appeal will be whether the Council's grounds for refusal were correct.

The concerns of those opposing the scheme

Choose any of the links below to review the concerns of those who want to see the appeal dismissed and the refusal remain:

the loss of sunlight affecting neighbours' gardens and homes

the long public view out of the conservation area

the value of the existing gap between the existing ends-of-terraces

the need to keep a significant stretch of historic wall intact

what the heritage statement actually says

what the heritage statement leaves out: was there ever an intention of building a No 2 in the gap originally?

How much building can we cram in
to plug up our historic greenway?

This "ribbon of mainly garden" illustrated above and below is actually a section of one of Brighton's longest  green corridors starting in The Old Steine, continuing through the Valley Gardens conservation to The Level, cutting through the green open space bounded by Park Crescent (see MAP) and forming the central green belt of The Round Hill conservation area as it threads its way to The Cat Creep and beyond, across the south end of Ashdown Road and into the gap fronted by the historic bungaroush wall at the south end of D'Aubigny Road. It connects with Woodvale Crematorium on the other side of The Vogue Gyratory so the green open space continues through Tenantry Down to Warren Road near Brighton Race Course.

101 Round Hill Crescent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See How we stopped long views at the other end of D'Aubigny Road at the junction of Richmond Road being plugged by a 5-storey 138-room scheme [dedicated accommodation for overseas students].

Why we are asking you to comment :-

1) to protect the long view out of our conservation area to the ridge above Tenantry Down. Public views can be protected under planning policies and this one - seen at its best from outside 3 D'Aubigny Road - extends across the vista of back gardens belonging to several listed properties at the east end of Roundhill Crescent.

2) to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties. The back gardens of the listed properties would lose afternoon sunlight. The rear facades are already very busy as some are divided into flats. Filling this much needed open space would box them in. The gain would be a single-fronted house with poor living conditions. The trade-off for getting sufficient light into the proposed house is loss of privacy and overlooking for neighbours. Several of the neighbouring flat-dwellers access their homes via the rear of the listed properties with frontages on Roundhill Crescent. New occupants of the proposed house would have very little outdoor amenity space.

Demolishing the larger section of a bungaroush wall - which has been intact for nearly 140 years - to graft "new build" onto the Victorian end-of-terrace house at 4 D'Aubigny Road (a very distressing prospect for anybody under the impression that they purchased a period end-of-terrace property)

  • disregards the heritage features of our conservation area (old walls, street lights etc. still provide us with some living history. Open spaces, especially the gaps betwen end-of-terraces (e.g. Princes Road / Mayo Road; Richmond Road / D'Aubigny Road; D'Aubigny Road / Roundhill Crescent) give our already very densely populated conservation area its open feel and visual connections with neighbouring hillsides. Round Hill has an absence of public open spaces (parks, recs, woodlands) so the relief of "seeing a bit of green and not being sealed in" is important. 
  • would be an alarming precedent if it were generally permitted in Round Hill. In Ditchling Rise Area, there was a recent proposal to graft new build onto the end-of-terrace house at the NE end of Shaftesbury Road (in this case depriving the local community of the amenity of the Signalman Pub Garden). The latter proposal (which alarmed the elderly resident living in the end-of-terrace house as well as users of the garden of the old Railway Hotel) was withdrawn as a result of PEOPLE POWER.

 

Background to the Refusal
and previous campaigns

On Wednesday, 12th October 2016, applications BH2016/00752 (new build) and BH2016/00753 (listed building works affecting 1880s bungaroush wall) were both REFUSED by Brighton and Hove City Council's planning committee at their meeting in Council Chamber at Hove Town Hall. The meeting lasted from 2pm to nearly 9pm

Most members of the planning committee attended a site visit on the afternoon of Tuesday 11th October 2016.  The weather was quite sunny, which highlighted concerns about "loss of light" if new-build in this sensitive location was approved. Cllr Lynda Hyde's account of what she observed during the site visit convinced most members that the proposed house would be very damaging to the amenity of No 4 D'Aubigny Road and No 103 Roundhill Crescent as well as to the Round Hill Conservation Area which would lose a much valued long public view. Cllr Hyde was able to quote policies -

  • QD27 (protection of amenity)
  • HE3 (development affecting the setting of a listed building) and
  • HE6 (development within or affecting the setting of a listed building)
  • and a couple of other policies

- as policy grounds for refusal.

Click here to see the reasons for refusal included in the planning decision.

 

SAMPLE LETTERS OF OBJECTION

D'Aubigny Road residents' objections did much to show that the arguments were on the side of those who worked to get the applications refused:

 

This page was last updated by Ted on 08-Aug-2017
(registered users can amend this page)