Tag Archives: Planning

Shaftesbury Place Planning Application

From Ditchling Rise Area Residents Association –

Please click on link for details of building of two storey offices on Shaftesbury Place:

Make any objections known to Council before February deadline.
Madeleine Cary

Signalman flats application withdrawn – steps application still stands


With the number of objections nearing 200 – some coming from Seagulls fans and as far away as Worthing, the agents have withdrawn the planning application to build flats on The Signalman garden.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
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

The Signalman – Flats proposed in place of beer garden


siggygarden.jpg largeOwners of our neighbourhood pub submitted two planning applications for the alteration of the premises in March.

Development of ‘former beer garden’ into flatsApplication number: BH2017/00829
On March 9th a planning application was submitted by Inn Brighton Properties Ltd to erect a 3 storey building containing 3 two bedroom flats on what the application states is the ‘former beer garden of The Signalman public house, now disused.’ To date objections have been submitted by immediate neighbours of the pub who have been consulted, stating their concerns about overlooking, loss of light, loss a rare community open space in the area and detrimental impact on adjoining in buildings. In addition they express surprise, as do we, that it is claimed to be a ‘former’ pub garden.
This application is due for decision on May 22nd

Installation of staircase to rear yard –Application number: BH2017/00920
On March 16th an…

View original post 250 more words

The Old Railway Allotments

The disused allotments between the railway line and the Open House and several adjoining houses are in process of being cleared of trees preparatory to the building of four houses, the wall separating the land from the station bridge has also been partially demolished for access.

The land was recently sold at auction with planning permission, which had been renewed after lapsing.

Our local councillors, Julie Cattell and Leo Littman, have been in touch with the council to investigate whether the pre-commencement conditions have been complied with.

The site has legitimate planning permission and the breach of the wall is not a planning matter but an issue between the owner of the wall and the developer.

Concerned residents can contact Julie Cattell, who has regular meetings with the head of planning and team leaders, at julie.cattell@brighton-hove.gov.uk.

SRRA provides a forum where residents can come together to work collaboratively over local concerns. Our next meeting is on Saturday 21st January at 10 am at the One Church.


Save Brighton Hippodrome video goes viral

From Brighton & Hove Independent

SaveHippodromePicThe campaign to save Brighton Hippodrome has gone up a gear, with the release of a six-minute video giving a rundown of what the campaign has achieved so far – and how much there is still left to do.

The video is presented by Paul Zenon, a leading campaigner – and a TV and stage magician. It coincides with the launch of a new petition urging Brighton and Hove City Council to fulfil its duty of care with regard to the maintenance of the English Heritage Grade II* listed building.

Campaigners argue the council has failed in this duty for the last eight years. Earlier this month, developers withdrew from a controversial project to turn the building into a £35 million cinema and restaurant complex.

The video includes Kevin Bridges, the actor and comedian, and Captain Sensible, the singer and songwriter. Four of the main political parties are represented by local candidates.

From Save Our Hippodrome –