The ‘fallen’ Sackville Hotel site: a second Hyde application now submitted

Early notice of BH2017/01108

1.4.17….Instead of registered planning applications, new applications received in the previous week are now published each Saturday on the Brighton & Hove City Council planning register.  Keep looking at the planning register entry for 189 Kingsway or as described here to catch the application when finally registered and the  documents are uploaded so you can see what is proposed.  Only then will it be out to public consultation.



Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , , ,

The Sackville Trading Estate redevelopment by Mountpark

18.3.17….Blimey!  It’s only 9:30am and site admin tells me three searches for Mountpark have brought eyes to this site already today – where I have yet to write anything.  For best current position please go to the Argus article published on Friday, 17th March….and read the comments trail as well.  And go along to the St. Barnabas Church Hall today to listen to Mountpark talk about this projectand their plans.  Hosted by the Hove Station Neighbourhood Forum who are promoting both MATSIM’s 17 storey monster for Ellen Street and this huge proposal for the Sackville Trading Estate.  11am to 3pm.
Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , ,

MATSIM don’t bother to wait for a planning decision and remove 10 yr old Plane Trees

MATSIM have two planning applications outstanding for redevelopment of he 1-3 Ellen Street semi-industial shed – these trees border the Ethel Street end

Plane trees planted by BHCC Environment Dept c2005 beside semi-industrial shed now owned by MATSIM

View south down Ethel St. to Clarendon Rd terrace in front of Livingstone Hse and showing trees and shed site MATSIM wish to redevelop

                                                                  This Week!!

Heartbreaking removal of the Plane Trees that did not have to happen and before any redevelopment consent in place


This application for demolition of 1-3 Ellen Street and erection of 4-17 storey flats and loads of offices and a single retail outlet has languished since July 2016 and remains “under consideration”.  There was no affordable housing to begin with and only a few little units suggested along the way.  But in January…..


MATSIM put in this second planning application for the 1-3 Ellen Street shed site which looks like petulance and blackmail – convert the existing shed into smaller units with a new entrance onto Ethel Street (wrongly called Ethel Road in the application Planning Statement.  IThis application was submitted in January and REMAINS under consideration.  Have they given up on the 17 storey heaped up piles of nonsense?  See the post written for 1-3 Ellen Street in August 2016 for full briefing on the megalopolis. Alongside this intention application is one looking to change use class from warehousing to offices and another to add a two-storey extension at one end.  ALL are undecided and REMAIN under consideration on the council website.
Both applications for the SAME site remain “under consideration” so why vandalise and remove the trees now?
This conversion only application is an underdevelopment in contrast with that overdevelopment.  And losing these trees is a tragedy.  A really stupid thing for MATSIM to have done.  No taste, no sense and could care less about the emerging City Plan wishes for this area.  They made a brilliant softening contribution to an ugly street scene.  And this stretch of Ethel Street, leading to the steps up to Hove Station which has seen the backs of Goldstone Villas buildings and garages converted to an avenue of small businesses on that eastern side could have been maximised and added to by MATSIM by creatively using what was already there; but no.
Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , , ,

189 Kingsway – Ahead of the planning stage, Hyde seek consultation feedback from interested parties

16.03.17…..In February Hyde Housing hosted an exhibition of the latest design for what it wants to put on the site of the fallen Sackville Hotel.  Some of you went along to it.  The exhibition material was subsequently put online for further public feedback ahead of submitting its planning application in the spring.

CGI panorama which does not do justice to the difference between the cream painted, rendered San Remo terrace (special and not grey) with the proposal

Please use this link to access the site, have a bit of a look and click on the feedback link to give your view.  Below I copy a few images from the Hyde consultation site and provide the saveHOVE comment submitted.  But your own views should also go in.  What more needs to be considered?
Chief among considerations is overshadowing as the sun moves across the sky above the sea.  In winter especially, when the sun sets over the sea, light to Walsingham Road and Sackville Gardens will be impacted a lot.  Look at this section of a photo from the consultation page.

Shadow over Clarke Court from Girton House on the Kingsway

I reference this to show just how badly any building at all on this site is going to inevitably impact those to the north of it, as almost surely, the Sackville Hotel itself did.  But it was not a tall building.  This proposal is.
Here are the CGI images provided on the consultation site:

Kingsway view

Kingsway view with San Remo Terrace






Unfortunate Sackville Gardens view 😦

NB:  The Hove Seafront Residents Association view is that it still needs to lose height and numbers of flats.  Copied below is the comment submitted in support of their position.   There are only 25 possible parking spaces which Hyde can design in and so there should only be 25 flats MAX.  Sadly something like double that is proposed (though not specified on the consultation site).  You may wish to say something about that (which I forgot to).
“The design development has been productive of a much improved design that has interest, is not screaming “look at me” just for to be noisy, nor dull template-driven dross.  It strikes an appropriately happy note for the seafront.
On the downside, it upstages the San Remo terrace to the east a bit more than is visually comfortable with a certain ‘fatness’ of appearance and look of town cramming.
It is 2-3 storeys too high and one of the site context photos shows the clear overshadowing issue.  A heavy shadow falls over Clarke Court from Girton House – THINK how heavily the adjacent Sackville Gardens house would be overshadowed/sunlight-deprived and Clarke Court would lose even more sunlight and suffer even more overshadowing than at present.
The Sackville Gardens elevation betrays the lack of appropriate step down from the main block to the oddly tacked-on extra shorter bit at the back.  Why is there no continuity of design?  The step down could be achieved by knocking off two storeys.
Instead of the number of flats proposed being crammed in, a more mansion-block style arrangement providing larger 3-4 bed family flats would fit into this neighbourhood better and provide what the city needs – but anything that is to include children living there needs to make the balconies safe for them so they cannot fall off.
To repeat what was said at the workshop, the Kingsway is a busy, multi-lane  arterial highway which produces both extreme noise and particulates from vehicle exhausts.   Balconies need to be designed to mitigate this, and to provide shelter from extremely intrusive south-westerlies year round and a way for balconies to be useable space in winter.  Glass surrounds means the jumble of  balcony belongings being visible to passing traffic and neighbours in a less than attractive manner and this must be mitigated.
The latest design has a close to internal balcony appearance which helps with some privacy and verticals may break the wind a bit.  This needs to be demonstrated in application documents.”


Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , , , ,

A Poetic Echo, allowing Medina House to live on through time – if Conditions of Consent are met

The Polly Samson (and Gilmour family home) redevelopment 

09.03.17…..Following on from yesterday’s Planning Committee meeting, which granted planning consent, subject to s106 Agreement being signed, and 19 Conditions being met, we now have to look at what lies ahead concerning Medina House, the site, the neighbours – because only one hurdle in the planning process of change has been cleared.  A great deal of work still lies ahead.
What has not been discussed at any stage and is not a Condition of Planning is how the replacement building will be addressed.  In the minds of locals it will continue to be Medina House and, if the plans are not changed (which they could be, more on that later), it will look like a poetic, ghostly echo in form.  The main building repeats much of the existing detail with the lost original east frontage brought back nearly identically to give the new amenity space some privacy and a front wall.   It is also part of the agreed plans that what remains of the original bespoke Royal Doulton tilework is retained on the retained north elevation on the east side.  A really serious echo, apart from contemporary twists like shuttering and the new east wing and the brickwork. Will this building just be 9 Kings Esplanade or will Polly Samson and David Gilmour want to retain the name “Medina House”?
Notoriously, however, once those first, immediate, planning consents are given, public attention and councillor attention ends.  Everyone goes away, leaving them to it.  Mistake.  Experience demonstrates that ‘carrots’ go into planning applications to sweeten and encourage consents which are later withdrawn via planning applications to alter or delete Conditions of Planning Consent or to tweak the design itself (see Condition 3 for this).  As well, uneasy problems that developers hope to keep out of the public consultation process, along with unfinished business that is expensive to organise and best left till you KNOW you have consent make up the inevitable list of Conditions, some of which prevent any start whatsoever until resolved.
So let’s look at the potential tweaks first.
The Design
Keb Garavito Bruhn, the Pilbrow & Partners architect for this project, sat a seat away to my left looking stressed, tense, concerned, focussed – even a little distraught – as councillors quietly, seriously, and joylessly considered his proposal on behalf of Polly Samson (the applicant).  Instead of gushing praise, he was hearing concern for neighbour impact and hearing officers admit that their recommendation was about benefit outweighing detriment to the conservation area, the townscape, heritage – but not neighbouring properties.  It would not have taken much to get a better response from all of them.  Five councillors turned it down because of neighbour impact and five accepted the outweighing argument and supported the plans. One abstained and one had (very unusually) not turned up.  This gave the decision to grant to just one person.  The Chair.
A project like this, for famous people, in a seriously prominent seafront position, with a design like this could have been more than grudgingly accepted.  And in my opinion, the design potentially merits nomination for an award within the architectural field.  It is a clear collaboration between Polly Samson and the architect and I’d like to hope they want a clean and happy all-round best of all worlds outcome and kudos.  It was achievable.
The five councillors who turned the application down echoed one another in saying if it came back with the east back wall and overall height reduced, they would be happy to support it.  So the project was never in danger of being a Taghan-style no-hoper.  Almost everyone wants this redevelopment to be a huge success.  Ball’s in the applicant’s court on this one now….
But, about that ‘carrots’ issue!  The east area back wall with the bespoke Royal Doulton tiles has the potential to be dropped.  The actual piece of wall must be retained in order to keep the tiles and to be incorporated into the overall structure.  It was one of the lovely reasons for wanting this proposal.  But they COULD come back with a design tweek  that demolishes and loses it on viability grounds.  See Condition 3.

The List of 19 Conditions

Please click here to see the Report to Committee containing the 19 Conditions at the front end.
Condition 3:  Any alteration to the design
This requires a planning application to be submitted and agreed.
Condition 7:  demolition and rebuilding
The council needs to see and approve contracts for demolition and rebuilding to ensure there would not be a vacant Sackville Hotel-style or i360-style demolished and blighted site left for years and years.  There seems not to have been any time limit from 2006, beyond planning consent that was deemed implemented in 2009, for i360; and the council and West Pier Trust were caught by the balls somewhat as Marks Barfield pleaded poverty and failed to get financial backing.  It is entirely possible that this blackmail situation was what led in a straight line to the PWLB financing, just to remedy the blight!!  So now the council are careful to bind developers with this condition.
Condition 8:  Materials
There is an ongoing concern and difficulty about  the creamy ‘chalk’ coloured white brickwork proposed for this replacement Medina House .  My own observations in formal response to the application for saveHOVE were echoed by Keb Garavito Bruhn in his speech to the Committee.  When Medina House was built, everything built along the Elsplanade was red brick.  Now nothing is.  Not even Medina House!   St. Aubyns Mansions was over-rendered and Medina House was cement rendered in 1923 because the Marine Environment destroyed cheap, porous brickwork so fast.  The newishbuild Bath Court and Benham Court are light buff yellow brick.  The non-original frontage of Marrocco is rendered and cream coloured. Plus,  the housing along Sussex Road and Victoria Cottages behind is also cream painted render for the most part.  So why would you want a dirty great red brick building stuffed between them all now???  It would be loud and garish.  And it would neither enhance the character of the area nor honour the memory of Medina House or do justice to the contemporary echo of Medina House…IMHO.
Condition 10:  the retained bespoke Royal Doulton tilework
How this is proposed to be effected within the redevelopment requires proofs and plans to be agreed by BHCC’s planning department to ensure it happens and happens well.  I hope and expect that Amy Frankie Smith, (new ‘fluxsurface’ website here)  an architectural terracotta specialist, whose Fellowship Paper on Medina House was read by Keb Garavito Bruhn, and who we brought to our consultation meeting with him and his team in August 2016, will be involved here. The fact this has been conditioned serves as a warning to the applicants that this part of their plan has importance and is expected to be realised.
Condition 11:  a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)
From the pov of residents this is almost the most important Condition of all.  How the hell are they going to actually DO this!!!!  The tight configuration and site access difficulties draw breath.  Plus there are queues in front of Medina House in summer for ice creams from Marrocco, use of his garden for dining and tourism along the Esplanade and the beach area itself to consider.  Demolition into the yard area could help contain the mess of demolition but the prevailing westerlies are going to blow the dust into Benham Court open windows and over the Sussex Road and Victoria Cottages area.  It would be a kindness of this could be a late autumn/winter demolition and newbuild to help with that.
These are the Conditions for which your attention is most needed.  There is a Condition about car-free except for anyone holding a disabled Blue Badge which involves an agreement that applicants have to sign but this is not an issue as they have parking close by anyway.  It means the house is car-free if it gets sold on.
Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , , , ,