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 Road 2018

2019 update

Crescent Road index

Concerns as to whether building is to approved plan on land to the rear of 28 Crescent Road

2019 UPDATE

Residents whose back gardens adjoining the development site to the rear of 28 Crescent Road have commented that what is actually being built deviates from the permission given by Brighton and Hove City Council.

There has now been feedback from The Council's planning enforcement team as to whether breaches of planning have taken place. The most recent planning permission relates to application BH2018/00433 approved on 7th November 2018. Those variations which have been approved are specified therein.

• The only breach that The Enforcement Team has identified is that concerning the residents whose back garden is in the foreground of the picture (below) are concerned that the patio directly opposite. the patio is deeper than the approved dwg C.01 by approx. 2m thus the architect is going to submit an application for the change. 
  
  See drawings 09 August 2016: 8717/208J Ground Floor for 28E within documents tab for BH2016/00862. Later applications requesting permission for variations do not show the patio.

Overlooking from the highest terrain in Round Hill into back garden

What can we do about it?

The developer plans to put in another application relating to the patio.

Residents can make their views known during the consultation period.

Read government guidance  Ensuring effective enforcement

This explains terms such as "Planning enforcement overview", "No formal action", "Retrospective planning application", "Obtaining information about an alleged breach of planning control", "Planning contravention notice", "Enforcement Notice", "Planning Enforcement Order", "Stop Notice", "Temporary Stop Notice", "Breach of Condition Notice"

Note that there is a right of appeal against both an "Enforcement Notice" and a "Planning Enforcement Order".

Planning applications and appeals.

Willingness on the part of a developer to appeal can create pressure on officers to recommend approval of planning applications since The Council (i.e. we the ratepayers!) bears the cost of upheld appeals.

Willingness to get involved

The most recent planning application BH2019/00072 Land to rear of 28 Crescent Rd which requests the removal of the car-free condition, has yet to come before the planning committee. Pleasingly, many residents have already submitted views on the above.

If breaches (unauthorised development outside planning permissions) are confirmed by The Council's planning enforcement team, the government guidance Ensuring effective enforcement lists possible courses of action. Some may lead to a retrospective planning application or may be countered through appeals. Round Hill residents have a good record of getting involved in planning appeals. The five appeals, recorded in detail on this site, were all dismissed.

Whichever political parties come out best in the May 2019 elections, consensus is likely to remain on the planning committee that new homes are needed. However, it is possible to have new homes without unacceptable design features or abandonment of sensible constraints and conditions. We urge our Local Authority to defend its own planning policies. e.g. saved policy QD27 from The Local Plan on overlooking / loss of privacy and Supplementary Planning Document SPD14 on criteria for conditioning a development as car-free (see NEXT SECTION). Otherwise, these policies become meaningless.

TO BE DECIDED

The developer currently has a planning application under consideration BH2019/00072 Land to rear of 28 Crescent Rd which would if granted add to currently excessive stress on on-street parking. See:

1. The Round Hill Society's objection to removal of car-free condition
2. Dominic Furlong's critique of inaccurate figures on parking stress

DECIDED

The approval of BH2018/00433 (see The Planning Committee Agenda) on Wednesday 7th November 2018 2pm at Hove Town Hall has already increased the amount of accommodation, changing previosly approved drawings.

ITEM E. BH2018/00433 - 28A Crescent Road, Brighton - Full Planning Variation of condition 1 of application BH2016/00862 (Part demolition and conversion of existing commercial buildings and erection of two new buildings to provide 4no two bedroom houses (C3) with associated landscaping) to allow amendments to approved drawings. RECOMMENDATION – GRANT Ward Affected: St Peter’s & North Laine

• Site Plan BH2018/00433 28A Crescent Road Brighton
• Pages 147 to 158 PLANS LIST Officer's recommendation to grant, conditions & reasons for them, site location & application description relevant history, representations: 24 letters of objection, internal consultations, material considerations & policies, considerations & assessment, impact on amenity, transport.
• Page 159 Councillor representation from Cllr Pete West.

You can Watch a Webcast of a Planning Committee Meeting online while it is in progress from 2pm on Wed 7th November 2018 or later.

Planning application BH2018/00433

The effect of BH2018/00433 would be to cram more in to increase profit margins at the expense of the amenity and privacy of many existing residents. Many residents, including The Council's Conservation Advisory Group regarded the previous permission as overdevelopment.

See: BH2016/00862 Crescent Road scheme approved

You may access comments from the DOCUMENTS TAB (scroll down) for application BH2018/00433

Also see sample objections which illustrate how unreasonable it would be to rob a large number of your neighbours of even further amenity to increase profit margins. One resident bullet points:

• bedrooms are to be increased by 50%, from 8 to 12 in total,
• some windows and doors are to be moved.
• The roof over 28E appears to have lost its sedum, its photovoitaic panels and rooflight.
• An additional bedroom has been added to 28D but this reduces the size of the existing bedroom. And all this without proper explanation!
• Rooflights seem have been moved too from 28D.
• The wheelchair accessible WC in 28B is now morphed into a bathroom.
• Refuse bin sheds are to be removed from a previously agreed site back to the boundary wall of houses in Belton Road with all the nuisance and offence that that would entail.
• And will the increase in the numbers of bedrooms mean an increase in the numbers of residents andwill there be a comcomittant increase in the amount of vehicle spaces required in the surrounding roads for motorists living in this car-free site?! !

The approval of BH2018/00433 allows the developer to make additions to windows and rooms.

SAMPLE OBJECTION (THE ROUND HILL SOCIETY)

[Feel free to use or adapt in formulating your own comment]

City Development & Regeneration Hove Town Hall Norton Rd Hove BN3 3BQ

Application: BH2018/00433
Applicant: AMF Investments
Site address: 28b/28e Crescent Rd BN2 2RP
Variations to application BH2016/00862

Dear Sir/Madam

This letter represents the views of the Round Hill Society who object to the above application.

The site is unusual in that access is severely limited and the site is also higher than most surrounding houses, so any development is potentially overbearing. In addition, most neighbours adjoining the site have very small courtyard gardens, so overlooking and loss of privacy is a real concern.

BHCC Planning Committee approved the original application, BH2016/00862, in October 2016 at the end of a very long meeting giving them little time left to scrutinise it. CAG voiced their concern, but the original applicant had met with and had extensive discussions with local residents. He did work hard to limit the negative impact on those living nearby. Despite disappointment at the decision, we accepted that local people’s concern had been listened to and to some degree addressed in the accepted planning permission.

This new application is different in several ways. Firstly the applicant, in our view, has failed to provide sufficient clear information about his proposed changes (eg no elevations showing changes to size, position and number of windows). This has made it very difficult for residents to truly understand what changes are proposed. We believe this is unfair and undemocratic and request that the application is declared invalid and the applicant is required to resubmit all of the myriad of proposed changes with appropriate clearly presented information.

As it stands we believe the applicant is seeking 50% increase in bedrooms, with resulting in very small rooms, and potentially a far higher number of people living at the site. There seems to be a loss of planned green roofs, photovoltaic panels and roof lights. Loss of wheelchair accessibility, and the moved windows resulting in greater overlooking. The relocated communal bin areas close to existing residents’ boundary walls and windows would result in nuisance and loss of amenity. There is also a new basement proposed to the ‘new’ build house, making it a two storey rather than one storey house.

Overall we believe that these new proposals are an overdevelopment resulting in over looking and loss of privacy and amenity for residents.

Should the Planning Officer be minded to grant this application, we request that .....

Yours faithfully

Before commenting yourself, you may access existing comments from the DOCUMENTS TAB (scroll down) for application BH2018/00433

SAMPLE OBJECTION 1 from Belton Road resident

I wish to object to the planning application BH2018/00433 that seeks to vary the conditions of the granted application BH2016/00862.

The original application was a much more sympathetic treatment of the site, arrived at through discussions between the developer and residents whose properties adjoin the site, initiated because of the concerns of those residents. Overlooking and loss of privacy was a major concern, and this was addressed through careful design of windows to reduce overlooking, for instance by making the windows high-level.

The new drawing (28 B GA Plan) shows windows in No. 28b but does not specify whether they will remain as high-level windows, or whether they will be standard windows that will increase overlooking and reduce my privacy. Similarly, a window in No. 28c has been enlarged, and another window has been added to No. 28e: these changes will increase overlooking. The poor documentation that accompanies the application does not include elevation drawings of these properties, which might have made the details of these changes clear.

Refuse bin sheds were originally sited away against the site boundary walls, but the developer agreed to move these away from the walls to reduce nuisance.

These are now proposed to be sited where originally proposed, against the wall of the rear garden of 40 Belton Road. The sheds would be a source of offensive odours which would greatly reduce amenity for existing residents. The granted application is for a total of 8 bedrooms on the development.

The increase to a total of 12 bedrooms constitutes overdevelopment in this already crowded conservation area. In summary, I object to the application on the grounds of overdevelopment, loss of privacy and overlooking.

Before commenting yourself, you may access existing comments from the DOCUMENTS TAB (scroll down) for application BH2018/00433

SAMPLE OBJECTION 2 from Belton Road resident

With regard to application no. BH2018/00433 (proposed variation of condition 1 of BH2016/00862) I wish to object on the following grounds:

1) We live at no. 34 Belton Road and I am extremely concerned that the plans now show a new window in the west-facing ground floor living room of dwelling 28E (see dwg.no. D.004 based on old dwg.no.208/J). As you can see from the attached photograph, this will overlook our rear garden (top of our boundary trellis can be seen). Also the window will be higher than our window levels, so the problem is compounded. The exact position and height of this window is not known as the architect has failed to provide amended elevations.

2) Another bedroom has been added to the upper floor of 28E, this will increase the chance of overlooking/ acoustic disturbance for us, and heighten our loss of privacy.

3) The roof over the living room was described as a sedum roof with rooflight and photovoltaic panels, is this no longer the case?).

Generally

Four bedrooms have been added to this scheme.

This is a blatant attempt to increase revenue from sale of the buildings, and a clear case of overdevelopment of the site after existing criteria had been established during the planning process.

Several changes have been made to windows and doors in 28B, 28C & 28E but no amended elevations have been submitted. All the amendments should have been described in the Revisions box on the right hand side of each of the new drawings so that residents can understand what is being proposed. These are quite complex drawings and differences between old and new are difficult to see.

Before commenting yourself, you may access existing comments from the DOCUMENTS TAB (scroll down) for application BH2018/00433

SAMPLE OBJECTION 3 from Belton Road resident

We object to application BH2018/00433 on the following grounds: The original approved application was for: 'Part demolition and conversion of existing commercial buildings and erection of two new buildings to provide 4no two bedroom houses (C3) with associated landscaping.' Whilst not explicitly stated on the application, the variation is such that it now seeks to encompass 4no three bedroom houses - an increase of 50% on the bedspaces encompassed in the original application. This, we believe, will certainly lead to overdevelopment and loss of privacy for neighbouring properties on an already marginal site.

The variation on unit 28C, which abuts our property at 44 Belton Road, sees an accessible bathroom lost, which we believe was an intrinsic element of the initial design, meaning it allowed disabled persons access. This bathroom been forsaken for an additional bedroom, meaning it is no longer accessible.

The bathroom in the previous iteration had a small obscured window, which is situated 1m from our joint boundary wall. The variation sees the bathroom replaced by a bedroom with a large window (no measurements are included to specify the size of this window) which presumably, unlike the previously agreed bathroom window, will not be obscured. Given the location of this window, it will lead to a loss of privacy and overlooking of our property.

Increasing the number of bedrooms from two to three in this unit will lead to a significant increase in the noise and disturbance we experience once the property is inhabited given the very close proximity to our boundary wall.

The original grant of planning permission BHC2016/00862 expressly stated: 'No extension, enlargement, alteration or provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse(s) as provided for within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A-E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) other than that expressly authorised by this permission shall be carried out without planning permission obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority considers that further development could cause detriment to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties and to the character of the area and for this reason would wish to control any future development to comply with policies QD14, HE6 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.' Hence, BHCC acknowledged in October 2016 that further development could cause detriment to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties and to the character of the area - I would suggest this variation in planning, increasing the number of bedrooms in the overall scheme by 50%, 17 months after planning permission was granted, constitutes further development and thus causes detriment to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties and to the character of the area.

For these reasons we object to application ref: BH2018/00433.

Kind regards

Before commenting yourself, you may access existing comments from the DOCUMENTS TAB (scroll down) for application BH2018/00433

RECOMMENDATION ( by the Council's Conservation Advisory Group)

The Round Hill Society asked Brighton and Hove City Council's Conservation Advisory Group to look at application 2018/00433 (28A Crescent Road) at their meeting on 6th March and make a recommendation to the planning committee (which is what they exist to do). The planning committee notes the recommendation but is not obliged to follow it. The Conservation Advisory Group has recommended refusal. Read on to see their reasons:

BH2018/00433 28A Crescent Road
ROUND HILL CA

Variation of condition 1 of application BH2016/00862 (Part demolition and conversion of existing commercial buildings and erection of two new buildings to provide 4no two bedroom houses (C3) with associated landscaping.) to allow amendments to approved drawings This application was introduced by Jeremy Mustoe representing the Brighton Society

The Group recommends REFUSAL. Whilst noting the lack of information in this application the Group considers the proposal an increased overdevelopment which will harm the character of the Round Hill Conservation Area.