The home site of the Round Hill Society, a community group of the residents of Round Hill in Brighton, England. The site contains information about the area, latest news and reflections on life in Round Hill.
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.
CONSULTATIONS pages 31 to 34
Neighbours: At the time of writing, a total of 2182 letters have been received, comprising: 2157 letters from residents objecting to the scheme, 23 letters from organised groups objecting to the scheme and 2 letters from individuals supporting the scheme. The content of these are all summarised below. (The addresses of those that have commented are contained within the Appendices. Some of the letters on behalf of organisations and groups are outlined in more detail in the report under individual headings.)
In summary, the main issues raised by residents in their letters of objection relate to the following:
Brighton Pavilion MP David Lepper: Objects on the following grounds:
Site unsuitable for waste - is a densely populated residential area Site for a refuse transfer station off Hollingdean Road was rejected in 1980 as unsuitable Existing depot has caused noise problems.
- Waste Local Plan highlights that the local road network my limit the total capacity of facilities provided at Hollingdean.
- Area has limited capacity to accommodate 60 large vehicle movements, particularly the Vogue Gyratory and narrow railway bridge.
Proposal would bring increased traffic movements closer to Downs Infant School playground Regret that a full assessment of other alternative sites not carried out since last application
- The city waste facility at Hollingdean was on the edge of an urban area when it opened 120 years ago - it has since changed and a new site should be sought on edge of city
(Note: A copy of his letter is attached at the Appendix.)
Hollingbury and Stanmer Ward Councillors Framroze, Hawkes and Lepper: Object to the proposal on the following grounds:
- Wrong to locate a facility of this size in a major residential area with consequent increase in heavy traffic and associated air pollution and noise. This goes against modern principals of environmental planning and it should be located on a site outside a residential area
- There is a more suitable site for a facility of this size
- Threat to health, safety and educational development of pupils of Downs Infant
- School, Downs Junior School and other nearby schools Use of narrow railway bridge problematic
- Amendment of additional covered way to MRF near playground does not remove concern
- Concern over proposed opening hours and impact on nearby residents
(Note: A copy of their letters are attached at the Appendix.)
Preston Park Ward Councillor Juliet Mc Caffery: Objects on the following grounds:
- the facility is far too large
- revision to the planning application only minor
- increased traffic in a residential area
-railway bridge unsuitable to accommodate 2 large vehicles
- increased noise and pollution
- a site near the by-pass should be sought (Note: A copy of her letter is attached at the Appendix.)
Architects' Panel: The Panel thought this scheme looked more awkward than the previous application in relation to the green roofed element which sits as a separate element to the other buildings with curved roofs; suggested trying a series of flat grassed roofs; the materials proposed could be more environmentally friendly to relate to the purpose of the site; more consideration may need to be given to controlling surface water drainage, light pollution and dust issues.
The Brighton Society: Object.
- Proposal does not differ significantly from previous application.
- Site unsuitable and is surrounded by homes and schools.
- Significant traffic increase.
-Alternative Sites Assessment contains questionable conclusions.
- The Environmental Statement is severely flawed.
- The buildings will be basic metal sheds, the cheapest form of building. Grey colour proposed out of keeping with area.
Conservation Advisory Group: No comment.
Countryside Agency: No formal representations to make as do not consider that proposal falls into the category of 'having a fundamental effect on the intrinsic character of a national park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or that it would set a national precedent where government advice is lacking'.
Downs Infant School (Head Teacher): Object.
- Site is surrounded by homes and schools and is not suitable.
- Air quality already poor in area. If at all, should be a much smaller operation.
- Hollingdean already deprived and ugly with poor quality of life, this will not be a step up.
- Site is very close to playground used by 360 children.
- Noise will be unacceptable as will make learning difficult and playing unpleasant.
- Proposal will generate pollution (even with MRF tunnel now proposed).
- Large aircraft hanger buildings will be imposing and depressing and unpleasant.
- Area around the school is already congested. Proposal will be an accident danger.
- Proposal will put off parents enrolling their children at the school.
- A number of smaller sites across the city is the way forward.
Downs Infant School & Downs Junior School (Chair of Governors): Object.
- Proposal would adversely affect children due to pollution and extra traffic.
- Many childrens route to school is along Hollingdean Road.
- Proposal would be noisy and detrimental to learning environment.
- The WTS would mean no prospect of reducing traffic in an already busy area.
CONSULTATIONS pages 41 to 45
Check out the Council's justifications for the BH2006/00900This page was last updated by Ted on 30-Mar-2019