Skip to content

The Planning Forum, attended by members of the Regency Society and Hove Civic Society committees, meets monthly to discuss planning applications which the Forum considers significant.

Each society forms its own view on the applications and decides what action, if any, to take.

In our latest meeting we considered the following issues:

Can you help us form a view on the Sea Lanes planning application?

The Regency Society has not yet decided its view on this scheme on the former Peter Pan Playground site. The idea of a heated outdoor swimming pool for free-style swimming and to encourage safe and confident sea swimming was suggested a few years ago. At that time it was for a permanent Olympic size pool and associated enabling buildings. The council agreed a 150-year lease with Sea Lanes developers.

However this application is somewhat watered down to a temporary 25m x 12.5m pool for a five year trial period along with enabling buildings: changing and plant rooms, events space, lifeguard station, cycle parking, retractable beach mat and mixed leisure including retail, food, drink and offices. The lease is now for five years. The pool will be open to all and offer good provision for disabled swimmers.

Temporary relocatable modular buildings of 1-3 storeys will be installed with a first floor deck for the leisure aspects of the scheme.  If the idea proves to be successful an application for an olympic size pool and permanent buildings will be submitted in three years.

We would really like your views on this application. Please use the comment facility at the end of this article and help us form a view.  You can see the full application here

Plans for the existing synagogue site on Church Street

This is a controversial scheme. The Regency Society has objected on grounds of overdevelopment. The site is the existing synagogue and associated building at 29-31 New Church Road, Hove, that will be demolished.

The plan is for mixed-use residential and community in blocks of 4, 5 and 6 storeys to provide replacement children’s nursery, 2 classrooms for shared use by St Christopher’s school, offices, meeting rooms and cafe, underground car park and 35 flats. Between and connecting these blocks will be a new single storey synagogue.

Additionally, and of concern to the Regency Society, is the plan to build 10 town houses at the rear of the site. This intention, alongside the building mass across the site as described above, leaves very little open space.

The society has no objection to the amended heights of the blocks and welcomes retaining most of the mature trees at the front, but is unable to support a design that should not set a precedent for future developments.

See the full application here

 

Housing scheme for Hove - a model of good planning

The Regency Society supports this mixed-use scheme for 163 dwellings that exceed national space standards, 938 sqm of office accommodation and parking.

Four irregularly shaped buildings from five to ten storeys will connect via a podium that allows for parking underneath and shared gardens for residents above. Landscaping intentions are extensive including trees enabled by raised mounds on the podium that suggest an undulating green space of paths and gardens. The existing line of mature trees will be retained and define the vehicle entrance to the site.

The scheme abuts the railway line and replaces small industrial buildings. Peacock Industrial site to the west will remain. The built up area immediately to the south is on Davigdor Road identifiable by the new Artisan housing block, extensive offices and Montefiore Hospital.

This new scheme is generally welcomed, representing good use of a brownfield site and model for future developments. It is hoped that the planned 40% affordable element will not be diluted as the development progresses. The society has some concerns about the impact on local facilities, such as surgeries and schools.

See the full application here

The Planning Forum, attended by members of the Regency Society and Hove Civic Society committees, meets monthly to discuss planning applications which the Forum considers significant.

Each society forms its own view on the applications and decides what action, if any, to take.

In our latest meeting we considered the following issue:

Tangle of buildings streamlined

The Regency Society welcomed this refurbishment and extension of 126-127 St James’s Street to provide four residential dwellings. Although access to the site is presently from St James’s Street the application site is to the rear of the Flemish Renaissance-style façade abutting the rear of Steyne Mansions on Stein Street.

The site covers a row of linked buildings on the north east side of Steine Street, which runs east from Old Steine to the corner (where the site is), then south towards the sea front.

Although the property is not of architectural significance, the area around it is. In the East Cliffe Conservation area it is surrounded by listed buildings at 1-4, 124 and 130 St James’s Street and the Star Inn at 7-9 Manchester Street.

The ground floor of the buildings are presently occupied by an amusement arcade and tanning parlour; the first floor is unoccupied and in decay. The proposal is to rebuild the upper floor and add a second floor to create four duplex residential units with access to the apartments via a new entrance and staircase located on Steine Street.

The application provides a sound heritage statement and is thus designed with sensitivity to the area, particularly in terms of its mass and materials. The design solution will significantly lift a somewhat neglected back street, once mews for the buildings on Old Steine, and enhance rather than compete with its heritage surrounds.

See application here

Would you like to comment on this article? The committee, RS members and other site users would be interested to hear your views so we are inviting you to share your thoughts online. If you would like to do so you will need to register first – it only takes a moment and once registered you can log in and comment on other articles on this site in the future. Click here to register. If you have already registered, simply click on ‘you must be logged in’ at the bottom of the page.

The Planning Forum, attended by members of the Regency Society and Hove Civic Society committees, meets monthly to discuss planning applications which the Forum considers significant.

Each society forms its own view on the applications and decides what action, if any, to take.

In our latest meeting we considered the following issue:

Building new council homes should be good news

If one follows the views of the Regency Society on planning applications for housing it is noticeable our objections commonly relate to the need for greater density and affordability, particularly in large sites in response to demand. By contrast, on occasion objections may relate to over-development.

However, the recent application for a block of 30 flats on council land on Lewes Road attracts a different sort of objection.

Trustee Kate Jordan sets out the reasons for our objection.

“The Regency Society opposes plans for a 7 storey residential block in Selsfield Drive. Though the scheme will provide much needed social housing, the current design is out of scale with the surrounding buildings and fails to respect the 'garden suburb' grain of the area. Moulescoomb is an important early cottage-style council estate, laid out to the design principles of Ebenezer Howard by the renowned planners Adshead and Ramsey (also responsible for the Duchy of Cornwall Estate in Kennington) with the intention of providing 'homes fit for heroes'.The carefully-considered street plan follows the topography of the Downs and comprises generous front and rear gardens and expansive grass verges. While the development under construction on the nearby Preston Barracks site sets a precedent for tall buildings along the Lewes road, these form a cluster, whereas the proposed building on Selsfield Drive sits awkwardly with the surrounding low rise blocks, dominates a key piece of the original landscaping and is insensitive to the general character of the area.”

See application here

Would you like to comment on this article? The committee, RS members and other site users would be interested to hear your views so we are inviting you to share your thoughts online. If you would like to do so you will need to register first – it only takes a moment and once registered you can log in and comment on other articles on this site in the future. Click here to register. If you have already registered, simply click on ‘you must be logged in’ at the bottom of the page.

The Regency Society has pledged £7k to the Saltdean Lido crowd-funding appeal to help the Community Interest Company (CIC) achieve its goal of £101.997. This will help unlock an additional grant of £4.19m from the Heritage Lottery Fund for preserving the rest of the building. The Society agreed to make a pledge, acknowledging the significance of the Lido as one of the finest remaining examples of modernist lidos in the UK. The appeal closes on 16 June. Prior to the RS pledge,  over 90% of the total had been donated. Regency Society Chair Roger Hinton comments:

"Restoration of the Saltdean Lido site is one of Brighton and Hove's most important heritage projects. The Saltdean Lido Trust has already brought the pool back into use and is now turning its attention to the main building which is in urgent need of restoration. The Regency Society is pleased to be able to support the project. We believe that it will not only save a fine building but also create an important
asset for the local community." ...continue reading "Regency Society supports Saltdean Lido"

The Planning Forum, attended by members of the Regency Society and Hove Civic Society committees, meets monthly to discuss planning applications which the Forum considers significant.

Each society forms its own view on the applications and decides what action, if any, to take. 

In our latest meeting we considered the following issues: 

Will single dwellings on the seafront continue to disappear?

A new application seeks to redevelop, for housing, the east end of one of the few remaining seafront blocks still at the scale of domestic houses. Three of six large family houses at 239 - 243 Kingsway are proposed for demolition to make way for a single block of 37 apartments, ranging from five to eight storeys, with associated car parking.

According to the design statement a key feature is a ribbon at each floor that wraps round the building and is intended to create a unified and unifying form.  The dominant elevation is Hove Lawns and the seafront. A secondary public façade, facing onto Braemore Road, adopts a similar motif.

The Regency Society has no objection to a tall block on the site and applauds the responsive consultation process that resulted in changes based on comments received.  The committee will not be commenting finding the application neither particularly outstanding nor objectionable.

When is additional housing objectionable?

Given the dire need for housing, are some applications just not acceptable?  We think so. In the following two cases we have raised objections because we think the proposals offer minimal accommodation but considerable blight to their surrounds.

The first application is land to the rear of 62-64 Preston Road, presently largely disused workshop space related to Cannadines.  The site is a tight triangular and largely residual area. Two previous applications have been refused resulting in a three rather than four storey addition and two rather than three flats.

While we agree that the existing elevation fronting Ditchling Rise is rough and unattractive, we have objected to the present proposal as it is too large, leaves little outside space on the site and will over-shadow the flats to the north and potentially overlook those to the south.    See planning application here

The second is 84 Tongdean Lane where there is an existing house set well back on a long narrow site with a garage fronting onto the road. The proposal is to demolish the garage and infill with a house to fit the narrow site with parking for four cars (to serve two households) at the very front of the site directly onto the road.

We have objected to the scheme not only because the proposed parking is at a road junction and potentially dangerous but also the usually landscaped buffer common to all the houses on the lane, will be lost to the sight of four cars.   See planning application here

 

Would you like to comment on this article? The committee, RS members and other site users would be interested to hear your views so we are inviting you to share your thoughts online. If you would like to do so you will need to register first – it only takes a moment and once registered you can log in and comment on other articles on this site in the future. Click here to register. If you have already registered, simply click on ‘you must be logged in’ at the bottom of the page.