Retrospective permission refused for changes to conversion of former Horsham offices at Sussex House into flats

Permission was given in 2021 for another floor to be added to Sussex House, in North Street, for two flats to be added on the ground floor and for a number of other additions and alterations.

But on Tuesday (June 6), member of the planning committee were told that it had become clear that the work had not been completed in accordance with the planning permission.

The top floor was almost one metre higher than allowed and had not been built in line with the walls below, different balconies than those permitted had been installed, the entrance sign was different, as was the layout of the front and rear car parks.

But the issue which caused the most concern for councillors and nearby residents was the inclusion of a 1.65m obscured glass balustrade round a balcony to the rear of the building, with doors leading inside.

The council had twice refused applications to allow the area to be used as a balcony, only allowing windows to be installed rather than doors.

Applicant Paul Craig submitted a retrospective application asking for the changes to be allowed – but it was refused by the committee.

Chairman Peter van der Borgh said of the application: “This raises some quite serious issues about decisions we are expected to make based on applications that are put in and not built according to the application that’s been approved.

“Gaming the system is not what people should be doing.”

His views were shared by residents of nearby Norfolk Road, who said the balustrade was ‘visually intrusive and out of keeping with anything else in the vicinity’.

One resident added: “I’m amazed and disappointed that the developers can completely ignore permissions they have, build what they want and then look to seek retrospective permission.”

The committee was told that the previously approved balconies would not have been strong enough to support themselves, so steel beams were included.

And the reason for the increase in height was to allow for a steel ring beam to spread the loadings of the extra floor.

Defending the decision to move away from the permission given, the developer explained that his structural engineer had not been happy with the make-up of the building and wouldn’t sign off on it without additional strengthening work.

He added: “When re-purposing old buildings things do go wrong. You don’t totally know what you’re going to get until the building is stripped back to its structural core.

“Some would say we shouldn’t have carried on with the works and we should have stopped the development and waited for the planning committee for six months.

“But having staff and banks to answer to, developers don’t live in a perfect world. They have to make a call and react to a live situation, especially when they’re regenerating old buildings.”

While officers expressed concerns that the council might not win a planning appeal, the application was turned down on the grounds that neighbours would suffer in terms of overlooking and noise from the rear balcony.

Clive Trott (Lib Dem, Denne) said: “The whole purpose of planning control is to prevent developers doing whatever they want.”