The owner of one of the oldest buildings on Brighton seafront has appealed after his planning application to build an extra floor was rejected.
Rapido Services Limited applied for permission to add a floor to 132 King’s Road, Brighton, but Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee turned down the plans last June.
The Surrey property company wanted to create a two-bedroom flat, with a front roof terrace and stone balustrade, a new lift and a stairwell in the building which for many years housed Melrose restaurant – now Pinello.
The committee voted not to grant planning permission because the scheme would lead to an unacceptable loss of light for neighbouring residents and the proposed glass-fronted apartment would harm the Regency Square Conservation Area and neighbouring listed buildings.
Rapido director Giuseppe Cardillo-Zallo, 61, has lodged an appeal. He said that the 18th century building was not listed although two neighbours are – 131 King’s Road and Astra House are both grade II* listed.
Mr Cardillo-Zallo’s appeal statement, which was prepared by Dominic Battrick, a senior planner at Vail Williams, said that the reasons for refusal were poorly debated.
The appeal statement said: “Concerns were raised during the meeting over the impact on the amenity of neighbours. However, these were poorly articulated during the debate.
“The eventual refusal reason confirms the concerns over loss of light to neighbouring windows yet the specific windows or properties that will suffer a loss of light were not specified or debated.
“Much of the debate focused on grievances over a limited community engagement by the applicant prior to submission.
“This suggests an attempt to appease objectors to the application rather than focus on the planning merits of the proposals which unfortunately were not discussed in the level of detail appropriate to inform the eventual reasons for refusal.
“Furthermore, the debate on the listed building application was limited to the technicalities of whether listed building consent could be granted after the planning permission had just been refused.
“Officers advised that only the elements directly impacting the fabric of the listed building required consent and only the impact on the listed building application itself was under consideration.
“Despite this, and the advice that a ‘theoretical approval’ could be granted for this application given the refusal of planning permission, members decided to vote against the application.”
Five objections have been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, raising concerns about loss of light, the adverse effects on neighbouring buildings and the lack of need for an extra storey.
Last month, councillors granted planning permission for a stone balustrade and a higher roof rather than an extra storey on the building.
A planning inspector is expected to consider the appeal before a decision is made on the outcome.
Well let’s hope common sense prevails, it’s not going to hurt anyone and someone ends up with a nice seafront place. Obviously someone is either jealous or maybe an envelope wasn’t produced.
Are you criticising council officials for *not* taking a bribe? How odd.
Hope it gets approved, it’s a big improvement.
Haaa big improvement, what a load of tosh. I used to live in the balcony flat for 11 years, gusipe doesn’t deserve to be a landlord, he never did any work on our flat and let it rot for the entire time. It was never fit for purpose, we didn’t even have hot water for about 5 years and regular mould and leaking roof issues. The main front door was never secure and was only fixed once only to break again meaning we would regularly find people smoking drugs in the hallway. The downstairs flat had supporting walls removed which meant our flat literally bowed, not to mention never having a HMO licence despite renting it out as a 3 bed flat. He finally decided to chuck us out and gut the entire flat after we had paid him enough rent to do so. To think he will treat any of the other tenants differently or look after the building once he’s got the amount of new rent coming in he sees fit is a farce. The only reason he wants a new story is because the top flat roof has been in disrepair for decades and no trades will simply patch it anymore let alone touch it. So why not build a new story if you finally have to rip the entire roof off because he didn’t keep up with regular maintenance. If you don’t have the respect for regency architecture you shouldnt own it.
Why would you not move house or report it to the council if you didn’t have hot water… For 5 years…
Because I was in my early twenties and didn’t know my rights as a tenant as I do now. Ignorance on my part, taken advantage of on his. The shower heated water as it came through so we just had to boil the kettle a million times for anything else. If I was in the same position now it would be a different story.
Or just move somewhere else?
Everything you have stated Daniel will not be used in considering the appeal.
Me, personally could not see why it was refused in the first place, the existing building
has had alterations so long ago and look out of keeping with the area anyway.
So, I see another floor plugging that gap as an ok extension!
I understand it won’t come into consideration with the appeal. Just find it interesting that no one finds it at all of a concern that a landlord who is happy to bodge jobs and remove supporting walls below a second story flat to save a couple of quid is going to build any kind of extension that is fit for purpose and/or will be regularly maintained!