Monthly Archives: May 2017

Air Quality presentation in #Brighton from May 9th 2017 meeting of London Road LAT

Advertisements

Next Saturday 27th May

Brighton Repair Café

We will be holding our Repair Café at FIELD Brighton as usual from 1-4pm.

We will be fixing electrical goods, clothing, textiles and other bits and bobs. We will also have Tom of Holland & his darning skills at this event so catch him while you can!

FIELD is also part of the Artist Open Houses this month. So come and check out the exhibitions whilst you are visiting us.

18268378_447570788922160_4248481215386454019_n

View original post

Signalman flats application withdrawn – steps application still stands

ditchlingrisebrighton

With the number of objections nearing 200 – some coming from Seagulls fans and as far away as Worthing, the agents have withdrawn the planning application to build flats on The Signalman garden. This is excellent news for the community and near neighbours of the pub – and welcomed by Drara and and everyone who objected. However, the application for steps from the pub to the yard at the rear of the pub stands – and neighbours behind the pub are concerned about overlooking and the harsh, intrusive LED lighting that has been installed on the walls here and future implications this might have for use of the yard – as a garden? – target decision date for this tomorrow – 15th May – so still time (just) to comment on this application here.

View original post

Complaint re 140-146 Springfield Road Planning Application

From: Robert Rosenthal <drrosenthal@hotmail.com>

Sent: 22 March 2017 16:17
To:liz.hobden@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Cc:robin.hodgetts@brighton-hove.gov.uk; Leo Littman; Julie Cattell; Sonia.Gillam@brighton-hove.gov.uk; ‘Edward White’; Sylvia Peckham; caroline.lucas.mp@parliament.uk; ‘Grenville Nation’

Subject: 140-146 Springfield Road

Dear Ms Hobden

I write to express concern over your department’s management of the planning conditions relating to the plot of land between the Open House pub on Springfield Road and the railway line. There are clear S106 conditions relating to this permission, insisting on the sensitive relocation of slow worms before the commencement of development.

A critical question throughout has been ‘what constitutes commencement?’ When the developers breached the wall (which is not part of the development area and is not the property of the developer as legal documents in our possession show) to gain access and clear all vegetation from the site, we were told by Cllr Cattell that it was well established in planning circles  that commencement is marked by the breaking of ground for foundation work. Therefore we were told this demolition and vegetation clearance did not represent ‘commencement’ and so was not a breach of the S106 conditions. Therefore no action could be taken to prevent the vegetation clearance.

Now Mr Hodgetts and Ms Gillam tell us that commencement was marked by the breaching of the wall and vegetation clearance. In this case the S106 conditions have clearly been breached in which case the council had then -and has now- an obligation to take action to prevent all development until they have been met. It is a perverse twist of logic to argue retrospectively and in addition, that S106 conditions ‘ aren’t impacted by the demolition of the wall … and are still possible to discharge’. While the breaching of the wall may not of itself be seen as damaging to slow worm population, it is surely beyond dispute that the subsequent clearance of the vegetation has represented a deliberate destruction of the habitat that supports slow worm existence in spite of ongoing investigation and discussion of the status of the slow worm community. This represents a legal offence according to the definition provided by Ms Gillam, as the developers have in so doing ‘intentionally kill(ed) or injure(d) a slow worm(s)’.   The developers’ actions have violated the spirit as well as the letter of planning conditions.

I am sorry to say that in this case council officers seem to have provided more support and succor for the developer than they have acted as guardians of the local community interest. And it comes as a shocking coup de grace for Ms Gillam to write that ‘The ownership of the wall is irrelevant in terms of commencement of development’ and for Mr Hodgetts to announce that he has now closed the enforcement case as there are ‘no enforceable breaches’.

I request that you intervene personally to investigate your officers’ handling of this case, that the case remain open and that public concerns be given the serious consideration that they deserve. Enforcement is now urgently required to ensure no further development take place until all conditions have been met.

Yours sincerely

Robert Rosenthal (Chair – Southdown Rise Residents’ Association)


Nicola Hurley’s letter in response to Rob’s complaint – BHC-025706 Springfield Road

March 2017 Reported Crime Statistics

Sussex Police have released the latest reported crime statistics for March 2017, the latest figures available.

Click on the map for detailed information.

Here is a brief summary of the crime information for the past two months:

February 2017 March 2017
All crime 51 98
Anti-social behaviour 16 35
Bicycle theft 0 3
Burglary 2 6
Criminal damage and arson 5 5
Drugs 3 1
Other crime 0 2
Other theft 5 7
Possession of weapons 0 0
Public order 5 7
Robbery 2 3
Shoplifting 1 2
Theft from the person 0 0
Vehicle crime 3 9
Violence and sexual offences 9 18

Please visit https://www.police.uk/shape/AnxkDj/ for more information including outcomes for these crimes and contact information for your local policing team.