8.12.15 UPDATE In spite of spring 2015 approvals for the 5 storey terrace proposals for this site, Hyde Housing have obtained an option on the site, a time-limited contract with the owners that means they have to get planning consent for their own proposals before sale of the site can proceed and there is a time limit within which to do it. The same people own the site as owned it when the much loved Sackville Hotel “fell” during renovations and expansion.
BH2015/04414 was submitted on 7.12.15 and as at 14.1.16 remains at the invalid stage of the registration process. A 17 storey cylindrical tower with lower blocks containing 98 flats is proposed.
16.1.12 UPDATE. These two failed applications have been granted planning consent on Appeal. See article of this date on the front page blog and read the Argus article.
Please see ‘Live Applications’ for the latest application to be submitted (only one month later) following refusal of this one. It is virtually identical. Please note all the reasons for refusal the first time round. Please also read the Post commenting on the new application too.
BH2012/00097This application for a terrace of 5 six-storey townhouses was received on 6.1.12, registered on 17.1.12 and refused under delegated powers on 9.3.12 (5 objections or a request from the site’s ward councillor are required for applications to be determined by councillors sitting on the Planning Committee). The site of the former Sackville Hotel on the Kingsway was cleared a few years ago following two fatal collapses during redevelopment and there has been one failed application for a mock Regency terrace before this application – which has also now failed.THE REASONS FOR REFUSAL ARE AS FOLLOWS
Reason 1
The site occupies a prominent position of the seafront and is within the Sackville Gardens Conservation Area. The proposed terrace, by virtue of:
a) Its position set directly on the Sackville Gardens street frontage with no visual set back
b) the poor architectural style, bulk and detailing of the upper floors, including the barrel vaulted roofline
c) The excessive number of floors (6) in relation to the adjacent seafront buildings within the conservation area, fails to respect the scale, general development pattern and predominant character of the Sackville Gardens Conservation Area and its significance as a heritage asset. Further, the terrace building fails to take into consideration its cumulative visual impact with regard the potential development of the adjacent site at 191 Kingsway, an application for which is currently under consideration. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies QD1, QD2 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove local Plan which aim to ensure that development preserves or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas and local characteristics.
Reason 2
Policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan seeks to protect residential amenity. The proposed west facing windows to the terrace building development would result in loss of amenity to the occupiers of the neighbouring property at 191 Kingsway by way of overlooking and loss of privacy. For this reason the proposal is considered unacceptable and contrary to policy QD27.
Reason 3
Policies TR1 & TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan seek to ensure that proposals provide for the demand for travel they create without increasing danger to users of the development or the public highway. The proposed development fails to demonstrate that the basement access ramp has been designed to a suitable standard to enable safe and practical access to the underground parking spaces for all forms of vehicle that are likely to require access. This represents an unsafe parking arrangement for future occupiers of the development and as such the development fails to satisfactorily and safely provide for the travel demand it would create, contrary to the above policies.
saveHOVE 