Menu
Home
About
Community
Planning
Gardens & wildlife
History
Links

Daubigny Rd and R H Crescent Refusal

See main article on proposal to build to the rear of 101 Roundhill Crescent.

Application BH2015/02786 - planning decision 26th November 2015

Situation: Land to Rear of 101 Roundhill Crescent Brighton

Description: Erection of two storey, three bedroom dwelling (C3) as shown on the plan(s) and application submitted to the Council on 29 July 2015.

  1. Go to BH2015/02786
  2. Then (to the left of the green button APPLY) change "Show All" to "Decision" before clicking on the green button apply
  3. The document Decision can be opened from the VIEW column on the right.

The reasons for the Council’s decision to Refuse to permit the development are:

1 The proposed development by reason of siting, design, height, detailing and the required reduction in the plot size of 101 Roundhill Crescent would result in a development that would erode and fail to reflect the immediate character of the D'Aubigny Road and Roundhill Crescent street scenes and the wider area including the surrounding Round Hill Conservation Area, compromising the quality of the local environment. Furthermore the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have significant adverse impacts upon the break in the roofline/building line of the existing dense urban built form of the area. The proposal would represent an incongruous development. This identified harm would outweigh the benefit of additional housing and as such is contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

2 The proposal includes insufficient public benefits to outweigh the harm to the setting of the Listed Building and Round Hill Conservation Area caused by the proposal, namely the partial loss of the existing open space gap between no. 4 D'Aubigny Road and 101 Roundhill Crescent, the general design of the proposed dwelling and the loss of parts of the historic boundary walls, by virtue of the failure of the applicant to include the proposed works to 101 Roundhill Crescent, as set out in the Design and Access Statement within the plans submitted as part of the application. As such the proposal is contrary to policies QD1, QD2, HE1, HE3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

3 The proposed alterations to the existing historic western boundary wall, namely the provision of piers and cappings to match those at 4 D'Aubigny Road, would result in a boundary treatment out of keeping with the historic front boundaries in the D'Aubigny Road street scene and the surrounding Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies QD1, QD2, HE1, HE3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

4 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 and the surrounding Conservation Area. As such the proposal is considered contrary to policies HE1 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

5 The proposed dwelling would result in a roofspace bedroom providing unacceptable and poor standard of accommodation for future occupants due to limited headroom, circulation space and outlook. This would result in an. The development is therefore contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

6 The proposed south facing window/glazed doors would represent an unneighbourly form of development by virtue of resulting in actual and perceived overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupiers of the flats located in 101 Roundhill Crescent. As such the proposal would have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

7 The proposal by virtue of its scale, bulk and massing close to the boundary with no. 103 Roundhill Crescent would represent an unneighbourly form of development which would appear overbearing and oppressive when viewed from the garden areas of neighbouring properties located to the east of the site and a development that results in a sense of enclosure to the garden area of no. 103 Roundhill Crescent. As such the proposal would have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity and is contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

8 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would accord to the Building Regulations Optional Requirement M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings) contrary to policy HO13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Application BH2015/00322 - planning decision 7th April 2015

Situation: Land to Rear of 101 Roundhill Crescent Brighton

Description: Erection of two storey building comprising of 5no one bedroom flats. as shown on the plan(s) and application submitted to the Council on 02 February 2015.

The reasons for the Council’s decision to Refuse to permit the development are:

Reason 1 The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, excessive footprint, scale, bulk and massing would erode the existing visual open character of the site, would have a harmful impact on the overall layout and design of the area, which includes the Round Hill Conservation Area and the setting of neighbouring Listed Buildings. The proposal would also have a harmful impact upon the distinctive layout and predominance of open space seen in longer views into and out of the Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to development plan policies QD1, QD2, QD3, QD4 and HE3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Reason 2 The proposed development by reason of its design, form, excessive footprint, detailing, plot size and the required reduction in the plot size of 101 Roundhill Crescent would result in a development that fails to reflect the immediate character of the D'Aubigny Road and Roundhill Crescent streetscenes and the wider area including the surrounding Round Hill Conservation Area, compromising the quality of the local environment. The mass, scale and bulk of the development would appear out of scale and overly prominent in the D'Aubigny Road streetscene and views of the Round Hill Conservation Area. The proposal would represent an incongruous and an overdevelopment of the site. This identified harm would outweigh the benefit of additional housing and as such is contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Reason 3 The insertion of two rooflights within the west and south facing roofslopes would result in the provision of incongruous features in the development. In addition the proposed rooflights are considered to be uncharacteristically high in the associated roofslopes, located too close together and the proposed side rooflights are considered to be of an excessive size. As such the proposed rooflights are considered to be of detriment to the character and appearance of the proposed development, the D'Aubigny Road streetscene and the wider area including the surrounding Conservation Area and the setting of adjacent Listed Buildings, contrary to policies QD14, HE3 and HE6 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan, and Supplementary Planning Document 12, Design Guide for Extensions and Alterations.

Reason 4 The proposed development would be built on an existing Grade ll historic wall located to the east of the site and as such would substantially alter the character and appearance of this historic wall. The proposal would also result in the insertion of an opening within the existing historic western boundary wall which, although likely acceptable in principle, would lead to a boundary treatment out of keeping with other front boundaries in the D'Aubigny Road streetscene and the surrounding Conservation Area and therefore an untraditional relationship between the proposed building and historic boundary wall. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies QD1, QD2, HE1, HE3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Reason 5 The proposed first floor south facing window in the development would represent an unneighbourly form of development by virtue of resulting in actual and perceived overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupiers of the flats located in 101 Roundhill Crescent. As such the proposal would have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Reason 6 The proposal by virtue of its scale, bulk and massing along the boundary with no. 103 Roundhill Crescent would represent an unneighbourly form of development which would appear overbearing and oppressive when viewed from the garden areas of neighbouring properties located to the east of the site and a development that results in a sense of enclosure to the garden area of no. 103 Roundhill Crescent. As such the proposal would have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity and is contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Reason 7 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would accord to Lifetime Homes Standards contrary to policy HO13 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

Reason 8 The small size and layout of the proposed residential units would provide an inadequate and poor standard of accommodation, with a cramped and confined internal environment that would fail to provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives:

1. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.

2. This decision is based on the drawings received listed below:

Plan Type Reference Version Date Received
Existing Site Plan E01 - 2nd February 2015
Existing Sections/Elevations E02 - 10th February 2015
Block Plan P/001 - 2nd February 2015
Location Plan P/002 Rev. A 10th February 2015
Proposed Plans P/110 Rev. A 16th March 2015
Proposed Front Elevation P/120 Rev. A 16th March 2015
Proposed Rear and Side Elevations P/121 Rev. A 16th March 2015
Proposed Rear Elevations Showing Wall P/123 - 16th March 2015
Proposed Front Elevation Showing Wall P/123 - 16th March 2015

This page was last updated by Ted on 12-Jul-2022
(Registered users | Amend this page)