Brighton College is a fine example of an ambitious approach to building success in every sense. The history of its buildings recounted here demonstrates that the college has not always been the leading institution it is today. Vision, top quality design and a refusal to compromise have contributed centrally to its transformation. This has clearly not always been easy, and is an example we hope other institutions in our city will learn from.
This beautifully illustrated history by John McKean shows why Brighton College has created a benchmark for design in the city.
The site of the former East Brighton Brighton gasworks has been blighted since it was bombed in 1943. The land is contaminated and therefore potentially costly to develop. It has become something of an eyesore (see photos of its current state at the bottom of this page). We would welcome a proposal to transform it - especially for much need affordable housing and as a focal point for the local area. A developer has come forward with a proposal but we are unhappy with it. Here's why.
The story so far
Last Autumn, developer St William consulted us about their ideas for the gasworks site. Their initial proposal was for a development including 600 - 700 homes in a densely packed high rise development. We were not happy with this. After all, in the City Plan, this site is earmarked for just 87 dwellings. This is also not an area designated by the council as appropriate for tall buildings.
The proposal would be out of scale with the area and significant overdevelopment. We feel that any development on this site needs to be sympathetic to the immediate mixed environment and add value to the local community. Read our initial thoughts here.
Revised plans
St William have now produced a revised plan (read about it here). We welcome some minor improvements, but little has changed from the first version. We are still not happy with it.
Too dense, too high, and out of keeping with the local area
We don’t think the current masterplan addresses the fundamental flaws we pointed out in our comments on the previous version.Minor improvements including treatment of Boundary Road and an improved northern entry to the ‘Green Link’ are welcome.
The 2021 Masterplan
It is still as dense as the previous version. Despite a few perfunctory changes, the buildings are still too high. We think the illustrations are deceptive. The apparent size of the buildings in comparison to others in the neighbourhood is misleading horizontally and vertically. There is an impression of relaxed spaciousness and sunlight between the buildings. The reality will be overshadowing for much of the day by the crowded, high buildings in most spaces, and wind tunnels through the long corridors in this exposed area.
Claims are made in the proposal that the design of some buildings reflects local heritage. We are not convinced by this. This matters as this site is close to the Kemptown Estate.
We also believe that the cost of decontamination (claimed as the reason for the proposed excessive height and density) should be factored into the premium paid for the site, and not recovered through overdevelopment.
There is considerable strength of feeling about this proposal amongst amenity groups throughout the city and other organisations with a direct interest in this site. We’ve joined forces with them in issuing an open statement which welcomes housing on the site as long as a significant amount of it is affordable and any development is sustainable. The joint statement also opposes the overdevelopment and tall buildings in this location, and urges a safe and healthy outcome for this site.
Want to have your say?
The proposal has not yet been submitted to the Council for planning permission. There is still time to let the developer know your thoughts. The consultation is short: the deadline is 5 March. Use this link to tell St William what you think.
Images of the site now
Boundary Road now and as proposed
Pictures from St William publications and by John and Mary McKean
77 Holland Road is a sensitive site; careless detailing isn't good enough
The application under consideration is to demolish the unsightly Choice Vehicle Rental that has spoiled the otherwise attractive street in Brunswick Town Conservation area with a mixed development of flats, offices and commercial units. It's a sensitive site, adjacent to Palmeira Yard, a grade 2 listed building of distinctive yet eclectic design, said to of the French Second Empire style. The applicant claims to have been influenced by this and to have responded sensitively. However the Regency Society disagrees with the detailing of the design response and has objected to the application. Our objection is below.
Application site
Elevation
Artist's impression of proposal
We welcome the removal of an inappropriate use and an appalling eyesore and agree with the proposed mixed use. We accept the proposed block plan.
However, the street elevation is a parody of the adjoining Grade II listed Palmeira Yard, detrimental to its setting and a missed opportunity to conserve and enhance the character of the Brunswick Town Conservation Area.
The glass-fronted balconies are particularly out of keeping. The proposed false mansard roof is a travesty of the true mansards and pavilion roofs of Palmeira Yard. The straight eaves demean the sophisticated swept eaves of the Yard. The flat top is unnecessarily raised to the level of the ridge, not the knee, of the Yard roofs. The partly recessed top floor balconies with their crude flat-topped dormers are an insult, not a compliment, to the elaborate Dutch-gabled dormers of Palmeira Yard.
We would question the assertion that it would not be viable to make a contribution to affordable housing given the value of flats in such a convenient and desirable location.
The Planning Forum, attended by members of the Regency Society and Hove Civic Society hovecivicsociety.org 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.
Moulescoomb, East Street Arcade & Kemptown Estate feature
YMCA seeking to build support housing in Moulescoomb
The proposal is for a three/four storey building for self-contained living spaces as an addition to their 'move on' supported accommodation programme. Thirty dwellings accessed by external galleries and with communal indoor and outdoor amenity space will, if approved, provide affordable housing for up to two-years for each individual to prepare them for independent living.
The Regency Society welcomes this application for much-needed and adequately designed 'move on' housing to encourage eventual independent living. At the same time, the immediate neighbourhood will benefit from the improved street scene .
Application site
Site as existing
Illustration of new build in situ
Illustration of outdoor shared space
Do you know which is East Street Arcade?
Yes, it has an entrance on East Street and also on Market Street and Bartholomews. A visit to Sweaty Betty's or ISC Menswear will land you there. But soon you may be irresistibly draw in by more contemporary advertising of these entrances with the addition of archways with illuminated canopies and framed light boxes.
Existing Market Street entrance
Existing East Street entrance
New look Bartholomew's entrance
Information boards to tell the history of Kemptown Estate
Five free-standing boards that explain the history of Kemptown estate will be placed at Upper Sussex Square, the east and west gates and south aspect of Lewes Crescent and on the Esplanade.
photomontage of sign on Esplanade
The Planning Forum, attended by members of the Regency Society and Hove Civic Society hovecivicsociety.org 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.
The Planning Forum, attended by members of the Regency Society and Hove Civic Society hovecivicsociety.org 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.
Brighton Open Air Theatre wants to improve its facilities
The Brighton Open Air Theatre (BOAT) site is located within the heart of Brighton and Hove in Dyke Road Park on the site of the old bowling green where, since opening in May 2015, it has become a well established part of the City’s cultural landscape.
BOAT is seeking permission to add a small one storey building to provide unisex toilets and an accessible WC, plus a booking office and crew room, with storage rooms on the lower ground floor. This will supplement the only other small building on the site that is primarily a changing room for actors.
The materials will be grey, both walls and roof, with limited timber siding, thus keeping it's profile low and calm so as to enhance the site without detracting from its near natural outdoor setting.
The space created between the new building and the acoustic sound wall can, with the addition of demountable screens, serve as a more private “backstage” space than is currently afforded.
The Regency Society welcomes this application that is designed to respect the surrounding landscape and work with the contours and levels of the existing site, thus improving the experience forvisitors, staff and players.
The Planning Forum, attended by members of the Regency Society and Hove Civic Society hovecivicsociety.org 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.
Circus Street
We frequently see how new developments result in the surrounding environment pulling its socks up whether through planning gain as with the i360 or inspired private opportunity. This application suggests the latter, inspired by the huge Circus Street mixed-use buildings quickly rising to unleash new vistas in a sensitive location.
No. 18 Circus Street is attached to 38 Grand Parade, a grade 2 listed building within the conservation area Valley Gardens. The application is for office space on the ground floor that includes a narrow and dilapidated shed/access on the south side. The first and second floors will be a two bedroom duplex. The intention is to achieve a change of use that will be a comfortable fit on an old street being offered a new life.
Development site in dotted yellow lines
The building to the left is a separate planning application
What do you think? The Regency Society neither praises nor objects to this application. It's a position rather saying 'it's good enough'.
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.
Application site on right, looking north along Steine Street
Application site on right abuts Steyne Mansions
167-169 St James's Street
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.
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.
Existing site (yellow rectangle)
Proposed building on site
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.”
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.
Many members will have noticed the Astoria Cinema building in Gloucester Place in the course of its demolition. Our June 2018 update included a photo taken of glimpses of the interior. Other pictures of this disappearing Brighton icon, soon to be replaced by a block of flats, have featured in the press and social media in May and June 2018.
James Gray obtained images of the building going up in 1932 (vol 30 nos 85- 89):
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:
Monsieur Poirot would not approve
Number 4 Grand Avenue is one of Hove’s finest 20th century buildings. It is also one of the best preserved.
It was built in 1939 to a design by Murrell and Pigott. It’s 1930s look is striking and, in the words of Regency Society member Robert Nemeth, “it would make an ideal home for a certain Monsieur Poirot”.
It is important that its distinctive appearance should be preserved. That is why the Regency Society has objected to a planning application to install a glass balustrade behind the balcony railing on the eighth floor.
The reason for the plan is perfectly understandable, to reduce the risk children falling through the existing railings. So why are we objecting?
The balcony is on the top floor and is clearly visible against the sky. Glass is a far from an invisible material and, in this position, it will act as a reflector. We are also worried that the proposed fixing into the stone parapet will not be strong enough to resist high winds.
We believe that there are alternative solutions. For example, an additional metal railing composed of fine horizontal bars set back behind the existing railing would be almost invisible. See the planning application here
The Palace Pier returns
The society has welcomed a plan to install a new sign near the landward end of the pier. The sign will read “Brighton Palace Pier” thus restoring its previous, but not quite its original name. Back in 1899 when the pier was opened, it was named the ”Brighton Marine Palace and Pier” and the initial BMPP can still be seen in places as you stroll along it.
However, we are less impressed by a new structure which has appeared directly outside the pier entrance. It is a large, windowless, wooden shed housing a gift shop and it looks quite out of place. No planning application has been made as far as we know. We have asked the Council to take enforcement action.
We’re not at all happy with the proposal for the King’s House on Grand Avenue – read about our concerns 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.
