The Round Hill Society

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.

Crescent Rd and permitted development

Crescent Road index

Background to BH2014/03343 -
prior approval for for 'change of use' 

REFUSED December 2014.

In their WITHDRAWN full planning application 15/01/2014: 28 & 28B Crescent Road -  BH2014/00124, JUST DEVELOPMENTS described the most recent class use of the office buildings as financial and professional services (A2), rather than B1(a).

However, having learnt of the government's grant of "permitted development" for change of use of B1(a) office buildings to C3 residential, JUST DEVELOPMENTS has gone to great lengths in application BH2014/03343 to collect evidence to show that the office buildings they want to convert to 5 flats had some B1(a) use prior to 30th May 2013 - the qualifying period for this new opportunity for developers.

In seeking to form 5 flats from their conversions, they are seeking an AMOUNT of development which, under a full planning application, would probably be deemed to be OVERDEVELOPMENT of this sensitive application site - a narrow strip so near to several existing homes.

Selective leases V Actual uses

JUST DEVELOPMENTS has now submitted statutory declarations from the Managing Directors of Service Twenty Four and The Sugar Hill Boutique to say that they were in the building (or that Geo Environmental were) and their lease was for B1(a) class use. However, the buildings concerned started life as parts of a laundry rather than as offices. Within their past, actual uses have been very variable, but more recently very light i.e. more akin to A2 Financial and Professional and B8 storage class uses than heavier B1 uses. Given the variability of actual uses, the statutory declarations obtained as evidence of B1(a) class use, do not represent the suitability of these old laundry buildings for conversion to residential homes at all satisfactorily. 

Geo Environmental Services was not the only past tenant whose actual operation seemed to be regarded (e.g. in online directories) as "professional" (A2) rather than a heavier office use which might jeopardise the amenity of immediate households. Shoal Creative was another perceived as professional or very light office use.

A2 Financial and Professional Services.

See Guide To Use Classes Order in England (30th May 2013).

Further development on the land would certainly need a full planning application

The location plan for JUST DEVELOPMENTS' current application varies from previous ones since this time it only includes the office buildings and not the land. If PRIOR APPROVAL for change of use is granted by Brighton and Hove City Council, under the new permitted developent rule change of use from office to residential would also apply to the curtilege of the buildings. However, this does not mean that JUST DEVELOPMENTS can erect what they like on the rest of the land. Full planning permission (further applications) would be needed to erect additional structures, even though residential use would be established. 

Straight conversion V external alteration

It is doubtful whether the straight conversion intended under the grant of "permitted development" could be adhered to.

The truth is that the buildings have had a number of uses, starting out as parts of a laundry and sprawling onto some of the green space between the Crescent Rd and Belton Rd properties. They are also in poor repair. The current makeshift office roofing, especially that belonging to the annexes, Current is unlikely to meet the standards for residential development without complete replacement.

In order to create decent homes (allbeit overlooking & being overlooked by others), significant elements of demolition and external alteration would be required. It is doubtful whether significant external alteration comes within the terms of the government's 'permitted development rule'. By now, there should be some case history on this point.

What is clear within the context of a narrow strip of land, valued by many adjoining households as an open space, is that JUST DEVELOPMENTS' scheme is most inappropriate as a candidate for the grant of permitted development.

Inappropriate buildings for conversion

Not all offices are suitable for conversion to residential homes, especially when the buildings started out as something different, are in a poor state of repair, have had miscellaneous past uses, and are inappropriately located in relation to existing homes.

A significant number of Round Hill residents whose homes & gardens adjoin the narrow strip of land between Crescent Road and Belton Road have made it clear to Brighton and Hove City Council that they object to overdevelopment of a much valued green space which would clearly result in some very intrusive overlooking and loss or privacy for several households. 

Early in 2014, The Council's Conservation Advisory Group recommended refusal of JUST DEVELOPMENTS' full application BH2014/00124, seeing it as overdevelopment and in a style unsympathetic to the appearance and character of The Round Hill conservation area.

JUST DEVELOPMENTS responded by withdrawing application BH2014/00124 before the Council had the opportunity to decide its outcome. They have since had three attempts [BH2014/00841] [BH2014/0185] and now [BH2014/03343] to gain the grant of "permitted development", which merely needs "prior approval" from the Council and only recognises three valid grounds for objection: i. transport & highways impacts, ii. contamination risk and iii. flood risk.

A determined developer (so far this year!)

• [1] 15/01/2014: 28 & 28B Crescent Road -  BH2014/00124 - full application for conversion of building from financial and professional services (A2) to form 5no self contained flats with associated alterations [WITHDRAWN]
• [2] 17/03/2014: 28 & 28B Crescent Road -  BH2014/00841 - prior approval for change of use from offices (B1) to residential (C3) to form 5no self contained flats [REFUSED]
• [3] 03/06/2014: 28 A, B & C Crescent Road - [4] BH2014/01815 - certificate of lawfulness for existing use as offices (B1) [WITHDRAWN]
• [4] 01/10/2014:  28B Crescent Road BH2014/03343 - prior approval for change of use [initially INVALID, then REGISTERED on 17th October 2014]

The developer's first application recorded the "class use" of the offices on the application site as A2 (Financial and Professional). This equates with professional use of 28/28B Crescent Road by Geo Environmental Services immediately before 30th May 2013 when the "permitted development rule" was introduced. To qualify for permitted development in our conservation area, the "class use" immediately before 30th May 2013 would have needed to be B1 (a) and not A2.

See Guide To Use Classes Order in England (30th May 2013).

Knowledge of the planning history of the site will prove very helpful in seeing off an appeal, which may be the next step. If we can support the Council's decision in this way, then at least issues such as overdevelopment, loss of privacy, overlooking, loss of a valued open space will be counted as valid matters for comment in future planning processes.

The Council's ground for refusal

The reasons for the Council’s decision to Refuse to give prior approval for the development are:

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the application site was used for a use falling within Class B1(a) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 either immediately before the 30 May 2013 or when last in use. Accordingly, the proposed development is not permitted under Class J, Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 ("the 1995 Order") and the application is refused pursuant to paragraph N. (2A) of the aforesaid Part 3.

Change of description on The Council's planning register: an unlikely mistake

See Section 22 of withdrawn application form (look under "A2 use") for AMOUNT (of office space) & USE (most recent) claimed by applicant.

• It was stated in section 22 of the withdrawn application BH2014/00124, lodged just a few weeks earlier in January 2014, that all the office space on the site is classed as "class A2 use" (Financial and Professional Services). However, Class A2 office floorspace falls outside the terms of "permitted development in a conservation area.
• The applicant is claiming that as much as 313 sq metres of office floorspace was in B1(a) office use immediately before 30th May 2013, but conceeds in his Design & Access Statement that the site was only being partly used then.
  
  Moreover, previous applications e.g. Application BH2009/01665 (see section 19) associate just 116 sq metres of office floorspace with 28B Crescent Road. Given that part of 28 Crescent Road had already been converted to residential, it seems very unlikely that as much as 313 sq metres of office floorspace were being used immediately before 30th May 2013.
• 28 Crescent Road was referenced alone in Application BH1998/02541/FP for "conversion of ground floor offices and first floor flat into single private dwelling house". This was approved on 19th January 1999).
• A further application to reference 28 Crescent Road alone was BH2000/01861/FP. This application, approved on 28th September 2000 before Round Hill's (2002) Article 4 Direction set stricter specifications for window replacement, included the replacement of timber windows with UPVC frames. it also included the removal of asbestos cladding replacing it with UPVC boarding. If by 2000, part of 28 Crescent Road had been changed to residential use and a separate freehold (with street frontage) had been created as "28A Crescent Road", then the asbestos removal would relate to the part of 28 Crescent Road which has remained as office space.

Limited assessment of contamination risks

It seems likely that other buildings on the application site contain asbestos. However, 'dangerous and contaminated materials within the structure of the very buildings proposed for conversion' appear to fall outside the terms of reference of the 'Professional Assessment' obtained by the developer declaring that there is not a "High Potential Risk" of Contaminated Land.

Click here for an update on our concerns about the inadequacy of the developer's land survey which fails to address contamination within the buildings to be converted. These structures, two of which are quickly erected add-ons, have had an industrial history far removed from dedicated office buildings. The two most westerly annexes (proposed flats 1, 4 & 5)  are not suitably located with regard to overlooking. However, even if they were, the structures would not be fit for conversion into homes without demolition and rebuilding. Re-roofing would be essential, but the quality of the structures would not merit it.