Objections February 07

Planning group Report  – 20 February 07

1.   01144    39 Salisbury Road– demolition of existing building and erection of 4 storey building with 9 flats

HCS considers there is no merit in the existing building and this is an obvious site for improvement, but the plans show a lost opportunity to reflect some of the features of the surrounding houses in the area, despite what is said in the Design Statement . We do not like the large areas of glass in the front façade which must be detrimental to privacy, again despite what is said in the design Statement.  
CAG had no objection 20/02

Update: The planning sub-committee refused the application on the 19th March on a number of grounds including overlooking, over-development and loss of community facility.

2.   04093 Albert Mews – installation of new vehicle and personnel gates fronting Third Avenue and construction of 1350mm dividing  wall at rear of 56 Church Road.

HCS considered the gates a simple design with appropriate materials but a site inspection showed that the left hand pillar should ideally be carefully rebuilt/reinstated to balance the existing right hand pillar (referred to as “supports”) and the front area needed to be tidied up in order to improve the appearance of this attractive mews; whereas the plans showed that the gates on this side would be supported by a signpost and the boundary wall would be “rebuilt”. No objection to dividing wall as this will not be really visible from the street once the gates are in place, but the scheme is likely to create an access problem and is being opposed by some neighbours.
CAG had no objection 20/02

Update: This application was refused by the planning sub-committee on the grounds that the gates would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the mews and conservation area.

 
3. . 00215    Sussex CC, Eaton Road: Construction of 2 storey  hospitality building and stand, 6 storey mixed use development plus demolition  of part of bat factory building, and re-landscaping of main entrance
CAG  had no objection  20/02

HCS notes the positive contribution SCC has made through close consultation with neighbours and broadly welcomes the application, but considers that a close eye must be kept on the position re the lower floors of Ashdown where the new building appears very close. At CAG Roger Dowty confirmed that the officers would keep a close eye on possible overlooking.

Update: There was an initial refusal for this application due to the adverse inpact on the adjacent conservation area but negotions were undertaken and the application has now been passed.

4.   00308    3,7and 9 Brunswick Street West: replacement and new windows and doors (retrospective)

HCS has no objection but the Brunswick Residents Association through Tom Chavasse felt strongly that the Council should have taken enforcement action against the owners of these buildings, only one of which (No 9) is listed.

Update: Hove Civic Society wrote a letter supporting the Friends of Brunswick Square and Terace stating that because of the association with 27 Brunswick Terrace all these buildings should have Grade 1 listed status. The design proposal should be taken as a whole and not indivually. We also deplored the fact that the application was retrospective and all the alterations should have beem monitored and dealt with by the planning officers before completion.
The application is under consideration

HCS make no objection to demolition (English Heritage have chosen to make no comment) or the proposed application as the site considered adequate for proposed development, and public consultation plus detailed consultation with the Conservation Officer and the Arboricultural Department has taken place. However we are still concerned at the loss of some trees to the site (particularly a palm tree) and consider this is something which should be closely monitored.

CAG  however did not like the design  of the buildings and expressed regret that an opportunity to design a good building had been lost  20/02