Saltdean residents are campaigning to stop an additional floor being added to a three-storey building in Lustrells Vale which they said would cause years of disruption to the area.
The landlord has submitted proposals to Brighton and Hove City Council, giving local residents until Wednesday 14 June to respond to the proposals.
Adam Benoy, who lives in Mayfield Court and works nights, said: “It will be impossible to live here if it goes ahead as there will be no way of sleeping when I’m on nights. I will have to move out.
“Aside from that, living on a building site along with the associated dirt and dust that it will give off will be awful.
“I feel especially sorry for the elderly retired residents. It would be interesting to ask the people making these decisions how they would feel is someone built another house on their roof. Shocking really.”
Another resident Matthew Bishop said: “We purchased our flat as first-time buyers just under a year ago in Mayfield Court.
“We had seen a property in another local block with work commencing akin to that applied for now.
“We didn’t want to live on a building site and this was a big driver in our choice to purchase in Mayfield Court.
“Our solicitor asked whether any major works were being planned for the foreseeable future. We were told there weren’t.”
More than half a dozen residents or neighbours have sent objections to the council saying that they are unhappy with the disruption that the plans by the building’s owner Isaac Rafaeli would cause to the neighbourhood.
They are concerned that the proposed flats would overlook Saltdean Primary School and add to traffic outside the school.
They complained that the planning application and accompanying traffic report did not mention the school or that it would be overlooked by the proposed flats, infringing on the school and pupils’ privacy.
Mayfield Court resident Alice Pickering said: “I own and live in my flat on the top floor. If this planning application is approved, I will have my loft space removed which I use for storage – and be expected to pay extortionate heating bills trying to heat a flat with no roof for months and live with an extreme amount of construction noise and lack of sunlight from the scaffolding for years.
“I am a young woman and work from home the majority of the week. I can’t begin to explain the mental and financial effect this will cause me.”
Another resident Priyanka Jose said: “We moved here recently … If they started work here, it will make noise and dust and my son and husband are allergic to dust.
“Also, it will affect my child’s health. We can’t move anywhere soon. It will push us into a financial crisis.
“We are working in a nursing home so we have night shifts. During daytime we can’t take enough rest if it is really noisy.”
And another resident Steven Little said: “I live with my two young daughters who are still at school.
“These works will make life very stressful for them and myself, affecting our mental health. We are also concerned that the cost of heating in the winter months would be unaffordable for residents on the top floor.”
Other residents objected to the proposal because the 50-year-old building would look be left looking out of character compared with the other three-story buildings in the area.
They said that there were no other high-rise flats locally and that the higher building line than across the road and the Westbrook flats would diminish the building’s aesthetic quality and make Mayfield Court look out of place.
They added that people could leave comments on the plans until Wednesday 14 June.
To see or comment on the application, visit the planning portal on the council’s website and search for BH2023/01429.
George White is a member of The Shoreline editorial team. This is an edited version of a story that first appeared on The Shoreline website www.shoreliners.co.uk.
Every one knows there’s a shortage of home.
One of the best ways to help this is to add a floor or two to existing apartment blocks.
It takes no extra land and services are already in place.
But NIMBs will have their say…….
You are totally missing the point. Some of the people mentioned have purchased their flats – i.e. they are only technically tenants of the freeholder, courtesy of the very peculiar law concerning freeholds, and actually own or are buying their properties. They have every right to be worried and concerned about having their roofs ripped off etc for the sake of landlord greed. Just think about it rationally, if you can. This is nothing to do with nimbyism, but just the anxiety of having your roof ripped off and the associated stress and mess that goes with all the building works. Unfortunately, the planning rules are such that having your roof ripped off doesn’t seem to be a legitimate consideration, which it should be, but isn’t, so objectors have had to resort to issues that are legitimate planning considerations.
And realistically, if all this went through with all the associated stress and mess to existing residents and owners, how much would it contribute to the shortage of AFFORDABLE homes in an area where you probably don’t live and have maybe never even seen. Nothing significant is the answer., except for the freeholder.
Selfish response!! And complete LACK of consideration for existing inhabitants. The shortage of homes is caused not only by the stupidity of your Government’s immigration policies but also their inability to control illegal immigrants. The existing inhabitants are ENTITLED to object.
The landlord should offer those residence, full market value for the flat if they wish to move or heavily compensate the existing residence. It is purely a moneymaking scheme and nothing to do with social housing. As mentioned in previous comments. It is purely financially motivated and the well-being quality of life of existing residents have been completely negated from this planning proposal.
The local school in this area, directly behind this development was refused planning to change a disused piece of (school) land into staff car parking. This would have taken parked cars off the local roads to make the area safe for child drop-off times for the school day. If this development goes ahead, and given permission, the council will be in contradiction to the reasons for refusing that planning application. You can’t refuse one and then allow another that will cause more disruption to the local area and more traffic. But I would expect nothing less of the council. It’s all about the money, section 106 agreements to plug gaps in budgets. The more I see residential planning applications approved without sensible planning for local infrastructure – makes me lose any desire to vote or bother engaging with democracy. Let’s hope there’s a sensible planning officer on the other side of this. And if there is – reconsider the school’s application for goodness sake
There are possible solutions to this for the residents if they object, as they seem to, and get themselves organised. It will cost them money,unfortunately, as everything like this does. I am assuming that the residents, or most of them, are owner-occupiers on a long-leasehold basis – it sounds as if they are – and that the applicant is the freeholder who charges for ground rent, services etc and is now looking to build these further 9 flats and sell the leaseholds.
If long-leaseholdershave bought their leaseholds (i.e. paid the market rate for their flat) and are in the majority of the existing 30 flats, then they need to get together and seek professional advice urgently. The preliminary advice need not cost an arm and a leg if they all chip in and then they will know exactly where they stand. The options would be a Right to Manage Company (RTM) if they fulfill the criteria for that , or purchasing the freehold themselves (the latter is likely to cost several arms and legs, but they do need to get together to discuss the situation and get professional advice PDQ to know what options are available to them and if they are viable.