Planning

Local planning applications The Kingscliffe Society scans the weekly planning applications submitted to the Council and opposes any which might harm the character, beauty or amenities of the area. The Society is also regularly asked for its views by the local authority when it considers development schemes. We support any developments which will enhance the area - but oppose those which do not.

At the time of writing some applications under consideration in our area are: a) BH2011/03155 10 Charles Street (listed property) – application for change of use from guest house to private dwelling. b) BH2011/02361 & 02362 12 Charles Street - applications to change single dwelling house (listed) into multiple occupation of 9 ‘cluster flats’. Scheduled for committee determination on 11 January 2012 c) BH2011/02334 24 St. James’s Street - Appeal against Council’s refusal to allow an additional floor of two flats. The Society has supported the Council’s decision to refuse a further floor as that would be out of scale with the rest of the block and finally obscure the landmark building of Dorset Gardens Church, already damaged by the development. d) BH2011/02949 39 Chesham Road (full planning). Conversion of existing accommodation and garage adjoining 39 Chesham Road to form a separate self-contained 2 bed house. The proposed development of the west addition to the Victorian school house would replace a current garage door with a housefront and endeavour to repeat the materials and styling of the school house. e) BH2011/02468 & 02469 30-31 Devonshire Place (full planning). Demolition of existing building and erection of four storey building comprising offices and flats: The present plain semi-industrial building is forlorn and detracts from the Regency character of the street as a whole. The proposal is for a horizontal flat-fronted grey cement-rendered building relieved by ‘juliette’ balconies. f) BH2011/02864 68 St. George’s Road. Alterations to convert vehicle workshop to form 2 three-bedroom and 1 one-bedroom houses accessed from Eastern Street incorporating additional storey, formation of gardens and associated works. Retention of part of 2 storey building for office use.. Recently determined applications include: BH2011/03058 Sussex Grill, 3 St. James’s Street - Extension of trading hours from 8 a.m – midnight to 7 a.m. - 5am, year round. The Society wrote to the Council’s Planning authorities objecting to this application for the following reasons: The Planning authorities should harmonise with other council policy and recognise that the premises is located in the council’s designated cumulative impact area; we are strongly of the view that if this application is granted, it would give rise to potential negative cumulative impact. We are concerned about people congregating outside the premises, dispersal issues and related disorder, noise and general nuisance behaviour impacting on the local area. That would result in residents suffering from further noise, and place a burden on local residents, should the need arise to make complaints to the relevant authorities. Previously, similar applications have been refused by the planning department, supported by the Planning Inspectorate, in recognition of the need to protect residential amenity. On this occasion the planning officer submitted a report recommending refusal (which was also the view of Environmental Health and the police) and we are happy to report that at the Planning Committee held on 14 December the application was unanimously refused. (Kingscliffe member, Janie Thomas, spoke to the committee on behalf of objectors.) g) BH2011/02874 Flat 1, 100 St. George’s Road - Application for single storey extension above existing flat roof of ground floor. Refused – reason: would be intrusive and incongruous feature significantly harming both property and the street scene. h) BH2011/03042 St George’s Church - Installation of 42 photovoltaic solar panels to south facing roof. Notwithstanding the general principle of alternative energy sources, panels on this roof would represent a further interference in the fabric of the listed and much loved church, and would be visible from upper storeys of many properties in the area. Approved on 7 December 2011. i) BH2011/01384 The Swan 8-9 Rock Street – Application to erect a pergola to garden entrance and decking to rear garden (retrospective). Refused on grounds of its uncharacteristic building form and materials; unsympathetic alteration incongruous within the street scene and detrimental to character and appearance of East Cliff Conservation Area. j) BH2011/02016 42-43 George Street, Brighton. Demolition of no. 43 and erection of new building to replace existing and second floor extension at no. 42; retail/financial & professional services/offices on part ground floor and 34 student rooms on part ground and upper floors. A Minded to Grant decision is awaiting completion of 106 Agreement for full approval. This agreed 106 contribution from the developers is for the sum of £15,645.97 and payment would become due before occupation of the development. Suggested use of the money is for improvements to Dorset Gardens Peace Park. Seafront Wheel – Since approval of the original major application (BH2011/00764) others have been submitted and determined, especially in relation to building on the highway and lighting. A success won by opponents relates to lighting: the original request of the applicants was modified to give permission for on-going lighting only to the outer ring. The major lighting in the centre cannot be turned on without permission from the council, which means that the applicants will have to apply on each occasion they wish to do that. It is expected that local councillors will involve affected residents in the response to such requests. Just before going to press we heard that the Brighton Wheel’s planning consultants, Stiles Harold Williams requested variation of the opening times of the wheel for two dates in December – viz. Wed. 21 December, extension to midnight to coincide with the Burning of the Clocks, which ends on Madeira Drive; and Saturday 31 December (New Year’s Eve) extension to 2 a.m. the following morning. The council considered it unreasonable to refuse the requests and agreed to variation of times on those two dates. No permission to vary the lighting has been given. A letter (dated 8 December 2011) from the Council, as Local Planning Authority, to the Wheel’s planning consultants (lead Ian Coomber) included a sharp comment – fully justified in our view - expressing disappointment at ‘the clack of engagement to date with local ward councillors and the local community’ They also advised that it would be beneficial to the Council, councillors and local residents if any request for further variations to opening hours during the next year should set out for the whole year. If you wish to comment about the two dates given above then you can make your views known to the consultants by e-mailing info@murray-media.co.uk Royal Sussex County Hospital Redevelopment The planning application for the redevelopment (BH2011/03886) has been submitted to the local authority, and is expected to go before the planning committee in February. The general volume, shape and purposes of the redevelopment are not changed in any major respect from those described in our previous newsletters. The upper elevation of the new south-east buildings have been set back somewhat, so that the immediate frontage along Eastern Road is less overbearing, but the bulk and massing are daunting, most especially for the residents opposite in Eastern Road and in Sudeley Place and Upper Sudeley Street, in our conservation area. Beyond to the north, the helicopter landing pad is to be placed on the top of the existing Kemp Tower, on a skeletal structure several metres in height. The listed Bristol Gate posts are to be removed but reconstructed at the reformed junction, composed of their present materials. The interior of the listed chapel will be transferred to the south-east corner of the new buildings. The Barry Building, locally but not nationally listed, along with neighbouring buildings, is to be demolished, the facade as viewed from Paston Place replaced in the latest designs by a bow-curved and balconied white front. In the extensive supporting documentation of the application, the explanation provided for impracticability of retention of anything of the Barry is that the ceiling heights and other structural aspects are incompatible with health service requirements. The Kingscliffe Society, while recognising the need for acute regional medical services and improved local health care provision, has objected to the redevelopment proposals contained in the present application, on grounds of overdevelopment, loss of the historic Barry architecture, impact on the conservation area, and disturbance and disruption to the neighbourhood and surrounding community during the ten-year period of construction. Many local residents have objected, as have some other organisations, including Save Britain’s Heritage; at the same time many expressions of support have also been submitted. The Hospital Liaison Group, to which local residents and the general public are welcome, and at which we have been regularly represented by Robert Edwards for the past two years, continues to receive updates on all matters related to the redevelopment, though less frequently than the monthly routine prior to the application. Details of these presentations and discussions, and of numerous links, plans and procedures related to the application, can be found on the website of Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust: www.bsuh.nhs.uk/about-us/hospital-redevelopment www.bsuh.nhs.uk/EasysiteWeb