The Round Hill Society

Ashdown Road Development

See also The influence of recent planning decisions on the outcome of 2 Ashdown Road

Permission granted at meeting on Wednesday 16th December 2009
The proposal to cram 5 units of accommodation onto the 2 Ashdown Road property, where there is currently 1 unit and some garages (on what is still considered to be part of Round Hill’s green ribbons) has now been granted.

The application was approved: 8 for, 2 against, and 2 abstain. Councillor Keith Taylor was one of the two who voted against. His decision was based mainly on overdevelopment and noise intrusion and he suggested that only one dwelling should be built, not two.

Although the decision to grant two new dwellings is likely to cause concern, most local residents will probably take heart in the decision to demolish the inappropriately located garages.

The upheaval caused when these garages were put into full by Raj Motors, is something that most will not want to experience again.

On this vote, Councillor Taylor (who represents our ward) supported demolition, though curiously the vote was again 8 for, 2 against, and 2 abstain.

Concerns about cramming and adverse impact on the Conservation Area.

The planning committee at least agreed to perform a site visit. The Chair noted local residents' concerns about cramming and concerns expressed through The Round Hill Society about impact on the Conservation Area.

There are also concerns too, which will need to be addressed, about pressure on street infrastructure e.g. pavement parking, lack of access for recycling collection & emergency services vehicles.

Background
Since the original plans for 2 Ashdown Road were submitted in summer 2008, the developer has been involved in consultations with the City's planning officers over the proposals. As a result of these talks, new drawings have been submitted.

Revised layout PDF, 1.2Mb A general showing the overall plan of the site with two new structures at the rear of the current building.

New houses (ground floor) PDF, 1Mb The new structures would be detached houses which would appear to be single storey. These floor plans show the ground floor layout with kitchen/diner and study in each house.

New houses (lower ground) PDF, 0.6Mb Floor plans for the lower ground floor of the new houses. Each would have two bedrooms plus a door to a small patio area at lower ground level.

Existing house (revised floor plans) PDF, 0.9Mb In the revised plans, the existing building would be subdivided into one two-bed flat on the ground floor and two one-bed flats on the first.

The revised plans still include two new structures to the rear of the property although on a slightly smaller scale (2x2 bed houses with study and kitchen/diner at ground level and bedrooms below ground). The floorplan for the house is revised substantially into 1x2 bed apartment on ground floor and 2x1 bed apartments on the first floor.

The arrangements for the parking at the front have changed as well with the garage used for one of the new detached houses and the entry way as a 'car port' parking space for the other new house.

Your views
"I'm astounded if the Council are even considering these new plans. As a resident in Ashdown Road I have been told that we are unable to change the existing timber single glazed sash for timber double glazed sash windows due to the 'street scene' and yet somehow these buildings are in keeping with a conservation area 'street scene'.

It makes me laugh. We don't get our recycling collected because the recycling van can't drive down the street. This development like the many others will create even more parking issues. That's even less space on the Ashdown Road, and no doubt the pavement in Ashdown Road which on the even side is used for parking. I'm bored with all of this, Brighton and Hove City Council Planning Department don't know [what they're doing]!"
Bored of Ashdown Road


See the developer's pictures of proposed new dormer, rooflight and garaging arrangements
Modification of existing house
(painted light green in the pictures below)

1) The dormer would ruin the best public views of Round Hill.

The proposed housing (2 x two bedrooms)

2) The proposed housing (2 x two bedrooms) is substantially different from the surrounding architecture and does not preserve or enhance the character of the Round Hill conservation area (HE6).

3) The aspect of the proposed housing units also represents a direct break with the Victorian street design of the area (The layout of Ashdown Road and the surrounding streets is shown on the 1882 OS map on page 46 of "From Rose Hill To Round Hill: a Brighton Community" Brighton Books Publishing ISBN 1-901454-08-8")

4) The proposed green roofs will not prevent the new architecture (i.e. rear elevations of the proposed houses) from being publicly visible from several vantage points in Woodvale (as shown in the picture above and the 'next-but-one' picture below). The proposed buildings would be detrimental to appreciation of the original street design. Note: the fine straight terrace of Richmond Road at the heart of the Round Hill Conservation Area.

Proposed garaging arrangements


5) Proposed garaging arrangements spoil the look of the terrace. Archways (where holes have been knocked in terraces) have been valued by the Council's Conservation and Design Department in the past as features adding character to the Round Hill conservation area (other archways in terraces are a] on south side of Round Hill Crescent and b] at 14 Wakefield Rd: Fern Villa). However, the current proposal is to convert the '2 Ashdown Road' archway into a car-port, which would effectively plant two unsightly garages at the end of terrace (Ashdown Road NE) - the ends of terraces in other Round Hill streets are visually attractive: missed opportunity to enhance by doing away with the existing garage adjacent to the footway, and extra car-port would further spoil the terrace, doubling up on an earlier mistake.

Overdevelopment / Cramming / Overlooking

6) Overdevelopment: five units of accommodation are proposed where there is currently one unit. Converting the existing house into three flats (i.e. three units instead of one) might be a reasonable proposition if the existing 11 garages were demolished and the backland/yard area were returned to garden. However, with two 2-bedroom houses in addition (five units of accommodation), this is clearly overdevelopment - the street infrastructure of Ashdown Road (which is already under so much pressure that Cityclean's recycling vehicle cannot offer collections) won't support it.

ROUND HILL'S CONSERVATION AREA ADVISORY GROUP REPRESENTATIVE

Do you agree? Please let us know what you think about the plans.

The site
The eleven garages, which the Council acknowledges to be located on one of Round Hill's "green ribbons", still technically have "deemed consent".

However, if planning permission is unlikely ever to be granted for their use, shouldn't these eyesores now be removed, or will the garages remain as a token used to press for further residential development where clearly the street infrastructure cannot sensibly support it?

Of greater concern is the current proposal, which if granted would result in "6 units of residential accommodation depending on limited street space in Ashdown Road in place of 1" .

Residents may wish to do what they can to ensure that members of the Planning Applications Committee, who will soon take the decision, are well informed.

How is it that planning consent already exists for 11 garages on a site so sensitive to so many neighbours?

This question crossed my mind last August, long before Raj Motors started its SERVICING, CAR VALETING and CAR SALES enterprise.

The question was actually prompted by the unflattering references to these sheet-metal roofed garages within the Design and Access Statement of the application to build three new units of residential accommodation on the site.

pedestrianisation of the site will relieve the area of inappropriate visual clutter, noise disturbance and pollution associated with the old garage court [Section 6: Appearance].

These delicate observations would have read less nobly had I been aware that the developer who made them was about to lease the garages to a company which could put them into intensive use, bringing to public notice the inappropriate visual clutter, noise disturbance and pollution associated with "the old garage court".

"The old garage court!?"

"The old garage court!" Isn't this plot part of Round Hill's "green ribbons". Why was tarmac laid here in the first place?

Would any householder be allowed to put an archway through part of their house, tarmac their back gardens and to supply some extra garaging?
What stops us building the archway is The 1948 Planning Act.

Brighton and Hove City Council's Conservation Officer tells me that the archway through one side of 2 Ashdown Road may have been built before the Planning Act was in place. While she does not consider the archway to be out of character with the conservation area as a whole, she does consider the area of land behind 2 Ashdown Road to be within one of Round Hill's "green ribbons".

Why was it then allowed for tarmac to be laid and garages to be constructed within this green ribbon?

In the Conservation Officer's words, With regard to the 11 garages, they may have been built post 1948, and therefore might have required planning permission.., but anyhow they are obviously over 4 years old and therefore have deemed consent if they were built without planning permission.

"Deemed Consent" - does that mean we can get anything through planning (however hideous) as long as we can hide it for 4 years and nobody complains?
Hiding breaches of planning becomes increasingly difficult as pressures on finite space grow. One cannot hide the traffic implications of having 11 inappropriately located garages in use behind the small terrace to the east of Ashdown Road. Round Hill (½ sq km in area; circa 1000 households; av 2.3 residents per household) already has double the average population density (at 4600 residents per square km) for that of a medium-sized city.

So what has now happened?
The Round Hill Society has now had confirmation that the Council have served an Enforcement Notice on Raj Motors. Things have been moving on with more and more cars for sale being parked
on the road. Apparently there are trading standards restrictions which forbid a high density - although vehicles can be placed on the public highway when for sale, they have to be a minimum distance apart (which is several hundred yards). The Ashdown residents have been collecting evidence of these infringements.

Apparently, the operators of Raj Motors have given informal indications to the Council that they are unlikely to apply for planning permission
and are expecting to vacate the site before the expiry of the notice.

The difficulty which Raj Motors would have had in obtaining planning permission relates to their use of a site which is still regarded as part of one of Round Hill's "green ribbons" in a way for which the plot was never designated. While the 11 garages might be said already to have "deemed consent", they have never hitherto been intensively used, so Raj Motors' enterprise would have constituted a "change of use".

The Enforcement Notice includes reference to the signage.

What about the obstructions in the meantime?
If, in the meantime, walkers (who may include wheelchair users, those pushing a buggy or people using mobility aids) are obstructed by motor vehicles parked on the pavement, the Living Streets website contains ideas and advice on how to respond to this loss of pedestrian space.

The existing pressures on street infrastructure in Ashdown Road should be made clear in lobbying members of The Council's Planning Applications Committee who will soon decide a proposal which would substantially increase the quantity of residential accommodation depending on this small street as its sole access.

The larger problem remains unresolved. It is still not to late to submit letters of objection (see below) since the Case Officer will receive them right up until the Friday (noon) before the application is discussed. The right time to lobby members of the planning applications committee is about one week before the meeting at which the proposal is decided.

The original proposal (summer 2008)
2 Ashdown Road: 6 units of residential accommodation (3 new) in place of 1
The original proposal was submitted in 2008 for 2 Ashdown Road under application number BH2008/02170. aerial view of site

The proposals were to convert the house into three flats and build three new houses in the land to the rear, currently occupied by disused garages and workshops.

Design and Access Statement (5-page PDF File)

Drawings Existing & Proposed Site Layout (19-page PDF File)

Drawings Existing Site Layout

OS Extracts Site Plan and Site/Block Plan

Sample letter of objection (summer 2008)
If you object to the proposals, you may wish to consider including some of these arguments or using this sample letter:

Kate Brocklebank
Development Control
City Planning
Brighton and Hove City Council
Hove Town Hall
Norton Road
HOVE
BN3 3BQ

Dear Ms Brocklebank

PLANNING APPLICATION BH2008/02170
2 ASHDOWN ROAD, BRIGHTON

I write concerning the above Planning Application for this location in the Round Hill Conservation Area. Unless otherwise stated, references in brackets relate to the relevant section of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

I believe it is proposed to replace what is at present one family house with eleven garages at the rear with 3 flats (house conversion) and 3 further houses where the garages now stand. In such a sensitive area I find this totally unacceptable for the following reasons:

The designs do not respect the landscape
The proposed designs include only the minimum of landscaping as so many units are arranged in such a small plot (QD1).

The proposed housing is substantially different from the surrounding architecture and does not preserve or enhance the character of the Roundhill Conservation Area (HE 6).

Furthermore, the creation of 3 flats in 2 Ashdown Road is out of keeping with the rest of the street where, as far as I am aware, there are no other flats, only family houses.

The designs do not emphasise or enhance the positive qualities of the local neighbourhood and do not respect local characteristics such as the surrounding Victorian premises with their generous sash windows, sloping roofs and moulded chimney pots. The proposed designs are out of step with this landscape and make an unattractive contrast (QD 2).

The outdoor amenity space for residents in the proposed houses is inadequate
There is very little space around the proposed dwellings to allow for outdoor amenity (HO4a) since the applicant has attempted to fit so many large buildings into too small a plot. In my view this makes the designs unsuitable for families.
The extra houses also lack a street frontage.

Proximity to existing housing
The proposed development is liable to cause nuisance and loss of visual amenity to residents in nearby properties (QD27).
The widely accepted minimum distance required to prevent overlooking from facing windows is 22metres but the proposed designs fall far short of this with windows to the south of the proposed units separated by substantially less distance from existing buildings in Ashdown Road.

Inappropriate site for families with children
Not only does this proposed development seek to destroy a family house in favour of creating 3 flats but it also then proposes cramming 3 houses into the land behind, thus raising the issue of amenity space (as in point 2)

The site, furthermore, does not allow for access to recreational facilities for children in the new development as defined in SPG 6 (i.e. it is not within 100 metres safe walk of a designated play facility).

Inadequate provision for parking and vehicular access
The proposed development does not fulfil the demands for parking that it creates as there are no parking spaces in the development.

It does not meet the planning standards defined in SPG 4 (parking) and is likely to increase demand for on-street parking in Roundhill Crescent, Richmond Road and Ashdown Road. Ashdown Road, in particular, already suffers parking problems with vehicles reduced to parking on the pavement on one side of the narrow road.

Environmental Impact
The proposals do not include provision to dispose of construction waste on-site (SU13). This underlines the fact that proposed scale of development is out of proportion to the footprint of the property.

On balance, I believe that the proposed development will be detrimental to the character and well-being of a historic area of the city and is contrary to the policies set out in the Government’s planning guidance and the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

I therefore urge you to recommend that the proposal be refused.

Yours sincerely



(Name)

This page was last updated by Ted on 05-Jan-2010