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