King Alfred Leisure Centre
THESE PAGES COVER THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KING ALFRED PROJECT FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE IIth JULY 2007 WHEN THE COUNCIL AND PLANNERS GAVE THE GO-AHEAD FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO PROCEED
It is easy to forget that the basic reason for the re-development of the King Alfred site on the seafront was to provide a new sports centre to replace the tired buildings on the site and how long ago everything was put in hand. The new design for the sports centre, agreed by all to be superb, has now become almost secondary to all the other aspects.
It was Brighton & Hove Council’s report of 1999 titled “King Alfred Leisure Centre”, that initiated proposals and enquiries to national sports bodies. A Project Board was formed, this Board appointing consultants in November 2001, to draft an outline brief for the site. This brief was highly detailed, identifying their requirements for the whole site, not only the sports centre, and has formed the basis of the development we see at this time.
On the 13 November 2002 the Council Policy & Resources Committee approved the Brief, sending it to interested developers from which four were selected for further consideration. This resulted in a public participation selection from three widely different proposals in March 2003 following which, in July 2003, Policy & Resources approved the Project Board’s selected team of Karis-ING. Their outline design by Frank Gehry included four high towers to accommodate the council’s required residential element.
The Consultation Panel, assembled at the council’s invitation, first met for a Workshop on the 12 September 2002 on which Hove Civic Society has since been represented, together with The Regency Society and representatives covering Sports, Transport, and Environmental & Neighbourhood concerns. Deborah Grubb, a retired Council Officer was Chairman.
At each meeting over the following year the panel discussed a different aspect of the site. Their findings, presented to the Council and the developers, were incorporated into the plans if suitable and the outline plans showed many changes over this time.
By June 2004, to reflect market forces, the developers modified their plans to increase the number of smaller size flats and decrease the amount of commercial use.
By March 2005, the plans showed only two towers of 25 and 17 storeys and eight apartment blocks around the outer boundaries, three of which, on the Kingsway, being affordable flats managed by a Housing Association. The Indoor Bowls Centre to be situated at a different site still to be designated.
The final designs went before Policy & Resources Committee in the first week of September 2005 and a model was on public display in the Jubilee Library from Tuesday 13 September until the end of October 2005 and following that in Hove Town Hall.
UPDATES
The Policies and Resources Committee accepted the final designs for the King Alfred Site on the 12th September and on 3rd October they were registered at the Planning Office.
This site will keep you up to date as things move forward
Three points from our Letter of Objection:
BH2005/05594 FOR THE KING ALFRED / RNR SITE
FROM; THE HOVE CIVIC SOCIETY PLANNING MONITORING GROUP
1 The phrase “wind funnelling” in the web site presentation requires closer definition as it suggests the wind effects inside the development only. Our concerns also extend to pedestrians along the pavements north of the building. It may be necessary to demand safety railings to protect pedestrians and cyclists from the traffic on the A259.
The Tall Buildings SPG mentions this concern in paragraphs 3.4, (7.2.2 in a note of false optimism) and 7.4.11, using the word safety only once in three paragraphs
2 The mention of “overshadowing” both in the King Alfred and the Tall Buildings SPG has been non-existent, as was pointed out in the Building Research Establishment’s code of practice defining an angle of intend from overshadowing of a proposed new building. This will be vital to the buildings on the Kingsway lying in a conservation area. (Previous objections by the Hove Civic Society related to the Cricket Ground and the Portland Road development were upheld on the basis of overshadowing ).
3 The “lacy towers” dressing is to be made of white painted aluminium and the City Council needs to be satisfied as to the suitability and longevity of the metal and the paint used in the salt laden air of this site, as frequent repainting may be required to protect the aluminium.
January 2006
The plans to the King Alfred will now have to be resubmitted as the Planning Department require some further information regarding how the development would impinge on the view from the East. This will allow further objections to be made and the Society will keep the issue under review
It has been reported that some of the flats to rent in the complex are to cost half those for rent in the rest of the City.
The Council has suggested that 98 flats will be available through a housing association and 151 one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments under the shared ownership scheme.
April 2006
The resubmitted plans are now being examined by the Planning Monitoring Group and further objections can be made as they see fit, if deemed necessary. It is difficult to tell at this stage but the central towers seem to be a little lower at the expense of an increase to the outer ring. The Society feels that there will be further revisions to come.
English Heritage and CABE (Commission for Architects for the Built Environment ) who between them constitute the government's main democratic advisors have been unable to support this development
June 2006
Campaigners against the King Alfred proposals have failed in a High Court bid against the scheme.
The case was a challenge to the Local Plan and the Council's approval of the scheme, raising the argument that it did not comply with the Government's guidance and that there had not been proper consultation.
The judge dismissed the challenges to the Local Plan which makes provision for the scheme and decided in favour of the Council.
June 30th
From The Argus ( June 30th )
Brighton and Hove Council have stated that the plans for the King Alfred will not go through in their present form and the developers will have to submit a revised application ensuring conformity to the recommendations of the Government's chief advisors, English Heritage and CABE. These bodies have stated that they could not support Frank Gehry’s present design as it would not fit the seafront of Hove.
Karis, the developers, have not indicated their revisions but they have been passed to ING their financial backers.
LETTER OF OBJECTION
BH2006/03429 –King Alfred/RNR Site Kingsway, Hove
Council Officer: Luke Perkins
This revised application is on a site which has long needed redevelopment, and made at a time when there are a number of other controversial proposed developments which will undoubtedly change the face of the City of which Hove is an important and very individual part. It is crucial for the Society to look at the application with a mind open to that change in order to fulfil its role of caring for Hove. We have seen the very detailed and carefully argued response letter from the Regency Society of Brighton and Hove, which we endorse and support. We would comment on the application, therefore, strictly from the point of view of the potential residents of, and visitors to, the proposed development, and the existing residents of the Conservation Areas adjoining it.
It is beyond argument that what is proposed is gross overdevelopment resulting from the imposed requirements of the City Council for the provision of affordable housing and a no-cost Sports Centre, and no-one could expect these benefits to come without a price. The question is whether that price is currently too high. In our view it is, for the following reasons:
1. Infrastructure: the number of homes on the site, market or affordable, will represent a considerable demand for services, and we are not satisfied that the developer has established that the demand can be easily satisfied. The Doctor’s Surgery shown on the plans, for instance, is very small.
2. Quality of life: we have concerns at both access to light and overlooking of the flats in the west and east blocks: the size of the piazzas will be dominated by very tall buildings which will make them too dark and they could become ghetto-like. We are also concerned about the control of noise from the commercial part of the development. (see below)
3. Management: in its comment letter, CABE appears to have assumed that the use of a single Management Company for the development will ensure efficient control of both residential and commercial parts. We question this, as what will be required is very strict enforcement of very strictly drafted Leases of both. How is this to be done? The developer stated publicly that the initial lettings of the shops and restaurants/cafes would be strictly monitored for suitability, but that surely would not last beyond the first assignments.
4. Traffic and Public Transport we do not have sufficient information to establish if this will be sufficient. The pelican crossing shown on the plans will in our view result in traffic jams at peak times, but nevertheless it is necessary for pedestrians to get to the bus stop to go east to Brighton, and the movement of people in this direction will be greater than than those going west. Therefore we think that there should be 2 bus parking spaces to go east.
5. Such CAD drawings as we have been shown depict the suggested effect of the development on several of the surrounding roads, such as Vallance Gardens. A number of residents have commented that the bulk of the proposed buildings, in particular the colours of the roof of the Sports Centre, suggest that a spaceship has landed. In Hove?! The appearance of these roads, and in particular St Aubyns, will be changed for ever to the extreme detriment of their residents. We consider this totally unacceptable.
For all the above reasons, we object to the application.
On behalf of the Planning Monitoring Group
OCTOBER 2006.
The Council has approved the revised plans in their capacity as landowners at a meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee held on 5th October.
Karis will shortly be submitting a new planning application to the local planning authority.
At this time it will be possible to view the revised plans at Hove Town Hall and St Bartholomews Square and on line at www.brighton-hove.gov.uk as soon as they are registered. There will also be a model in Hove Town Hall.
This will be a new application and the consultation process will apply and there will be an opportunity for objection to be made.
The Hove Civic Society Planning Monitoring Group will inspect the plans and make recommendations on your behalf or you may do so individually.
The main issue is the decision to split the development over more than one site and it leaves the Planning Office searching for alternative venues for 'a meaningful number of the homes'
Key Changes in Design
- Significant redesign and re-massing of the scheme to address issues of bulk and height
- Reduced height of perimeter buildings along Kingsway by two storeys
- The profile of the towers has been refined and enhanced and increased in height by three storeys
- The perimeter buildings now feature a curved profile and roof to complement the sports centre design
- The colour of the perimeter buildings changes, and designed to meet Police 'secured design' standards
- Public artwork by sculptor Anthony Gormley
- New seating and lighting
- A Doctors surgery and Pharmacy
- Police Station
The sports centre facilities remain the same but there are some changes in Sustainability, Affordable Housing and the transport system.
Our Letter:
Dear Ms Gilks
Town and Country Planning (Development Plans & Consultation)(Departures) Directions 1999
BH2006/03429 Full Planning King Alfred/RNR Site Kingsway Hove :
Re-Development of the King Alfred/RNR Site, Kingsway, Hove, East Sussex
I write on behalf of the Hove Civic Society and in support of the Regency Society of Brighton and Hove and the Brighton Society to request a ‘call in’ for a public enquiry into this extremely controversial application. In making this request the Society writes from the point of view of the potential residents of, and visitors to, the proposed development, and the existing residents of the Conservation Areas adjoining it. The grounds for it are as follows:
1 Quality of life: we have extreme concerns at both access to light and overlooking of the flats in the west and east blocks: the size of the piazzas will be dominated by very tall buildings which will make them too dark and they could become ghetto-like. These buildings are located too close to adjoining properties which will suffer from lack of light and constant overshadowing. We are also concerned about the control of noise from the commercial part of the development. The effect of the development on several of the surrounding roads, such as Vallance Gardens, would be considerable. The appearance of these roads, and in particular St Aubyns, will be changed for ever to the extreme detriment of their residents. We consider this totally unacceptable.
2 Traffic and Public Transport: we are not satisfied that the effect of the proposed development has been sufficiently assessed and we consider that again the lives of residents will be very adversely affected by the increase in traffic and consequent noise, pollution and disruption.
3 Overdevelopment: it is beyond argument that what is proposed is gross overdevelopment resulting from the imposed requirements of the City Council for the provision of affordable housing and a no-cost Sports Centre. The price for this will be paid by the residents of Hove in the diminution of the quality of their lives and the deleterious effect on the areas in which they live.
Yours faithfully
Carolyn Oxenbury - Vice-Chairman
May 2007
The Secretary of State Ruth Kelly who had the power to block the King Alfred project has chosen to take no further action.
GOSE ( Government Office of the South East) said that intervention was not justified as the scheme did not unduly conflict with national policies.
This allows the scheme to move forward unless there are legal moves and court action.
Friday 23rd March 2007
The plans for the King Alfred development were passed by the Council on the above date by a single vote cast by the Labour Councillor Les Hamilton, Chairman of the Planning Sub-Committee.
Hove Civic Society are working with the Regency Society of Brighton and Hove to seek a 'call in' for a public enquiry
It is important that as many letters as possible go to GOSE (Government Office for the South East.)
Public opinion is particularly important at this time to ensure that the plans are reviewed by an independent body.
Letters requesting a 'call in' should be sent to the address below and there are some suggested points that individuals can raise. Letters must be received by the 23rd April.
Address:
Government Office for the South East
Bridge House
1 Walnut Tree Close
Guildford
Surrey GU1 4GA
To. Mr Gilks Re: BH2006/03429 Full Planning King Alfred/RNR Site Kingsway Hove.
Re-development of the King Alfred/RNR Site, Kingsway, Hove.
Some reasons which may help with your letter;
- This application involves development on land owned by the City Council which therefore has an interest in the site and cannot make objective planning decisions
- The scheme involves serious over-development that has not been properly assessed and there is no consideration on the impact on the privacy of local residents
- The views of English Heritage have been mis-represented as being in support of the proposals as a whole
- The tall perimeter blocks are located too close to existing housing and will have a major adverse effect on daylight
- Adjoining properties will be overshadowed for many hours
- The internal piazzas will be dark and windy and serious wind turbulance and noise within the scheme will impact on both public and residents
- Many people, residents, local people and visitors would be adversely affected by the impact of the proposed scheme and the increase of cars, public transport and people in this over-developed seafront area has been under-estimated.
June 29th 2007
On the above date a press release was issued by the Regency Society of Brighton and Hove following advice from their Counsel.
The points raised are below:
1 The resolution passed by the Sub-Committee in March was not a final one
and
2 That the Sub-Committee had the right to reconsider the matter, especially following the election which put in place a new administration
and
3 The Sub-Committee had the right to come to a different conclusion from the members of the earlier Sub-Committee, providing that it had proper planning grounds to do so.
A letter of support was written to the Chief Executive by the Hove Civic Society and appears below:
Dear Sir
The Society has seen the detailed and carefully argued Request from the Regency Society of Brighton and Hove sent to you on Friday last: we fully endorse and support it. While we have no objection to a suitable redevelopment of this site, and as indicated in our previous letter dated 24th November 2006, have looked at the application with an open mind, our role is to care for Hove, not only for its Conservation and other historic Areas, but also for the residents who live and work there.
In our previous letter we argued that the gross overdevelopment resulting from the imposed requirements of the City Council for the provision of affordable housing and a no cost Sports Centre came at a price which was likely to be too high. The Regency Society’s analysis of only 3 topics (overdevelopment, daylighting/.sunlighting, and sustainability) shows how inadequate the proposed development is: the effect on the quality of life of residents in Viceroy Lodge, Lancaster Court, St Aubyns Mansions and St Aubyns Gardens appears to have been seriously underestimated.
In particular however the Society is gravely concerned at the closely and competently argued suggestion that the City Planner’s Report to the (then) Planning Sub-Committee was seriously flawed. Whether this was deliberate or by omission must be determined: for that reason alone the Council should revisit the “minded to grant” application and we request that it should do so.
Carolyn Oxenbury, on behalf of the Hove Civic Society.
Some reasons which may help with your letter;
- This application involves development on land owned by the City Council which therefore has an interest in the site and cannot make objective planning decisions
- The scheme involves serious over-development that has not been properly assessed and there is no consideration on the impact on the privacy of local residents
- The views of English Heritage have been mis-represented as being in support of the proposals as a whole
- The tall perimeter blocks are located too close to existing housing and will have a major adverse effect on daylight
- Adjoining properties will be overshadowed for many hours
- The internal piazzas will be dark and windy and serious wind turbulance and noise within the scheme will impact on both public and residents
- Many people, residents, local people and visitors would be adversely affected by the impact of the proposed scheme and the increase of cars, public transport and people in this over-developed seafront area has been under-estimated.
July 6th 2007
The controversial towers designed by Frank Gehry for Hove sea front are set to be approved on Wednesday 11 July, because the Tories, voted to lead Brighton and Hove City Council only two months ago, have done a U turn.
Before the election, for good reasons the Conservatives strongly opposed the scheme proposed for the King Alfred site, because it will have a devastating effect on day-lighting and sun-lighting in surrounding homes and streets, with deep shadows engulfing the area during the dark days of winter. When elected, Conservative Leader Brian Oxley stated that it was important to prevent the
development going ahead
Dr Michael Ray, Chairman of the Regency Society of Brighton and Hove says ‘It is clear that, if there was the political will, the planning application could still be refused for sound planning reasons, notwithstanding a ‘minded to grant’ decision by the planning subcommittee on 23 March 2007. We have obtained advice from Legal Counsel that says just that.’
‘The decision was made by the outgoing Labour Council on the chairman’s casting vote at a hurriedly convened meeting, as a final act before the election. It was strongly opposed by both Conservatives and Greens, so with great optimism we shared our legal advice with the Leaders of both parties, but to no avail. The Conservatives have thrown in the towel, running scared of threats by the
developer to sue, and the Greens are sitting on their hands, prepared to do absolutely nothing, despite the scheme having poor green credentials.’
After the March decision Keith Taylor Leader of the Greens wrote in The Argus (25 May)
"We also stand accused of voting through the King Alfred project. This is ... wrong ... the permission ... was a travesty ... the long-term interests of the City have not been best served"
The Society has urged the Chief Executive of the City Council to obtain independent legal advice to help the new Council resist the Gehry development, but for his own reasons he has declined to do so.
‘We have also submitted a formal request to the Council for the decision to be revisited, supported by a detailed case showing the flaws in the original decision’ says Dr Ray. ‘We asked for a new decision refusing consent which the applicants could challenge on appeal or open fresh negotiations.
‘The Chief Executive has so far refused to present our submission to the Council and has instead convened yet another special meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee to get the planning application approved without further delay.
‘So we are left with a scheme which was described by the Council’s own expert adviser as the worst scheme he had ever seen in terms of sunlighting and daylighting impact, that will have a 13 storey buildings just 17 metres from existing flats on Hove sea front, and a proposal that could not meet the Council’s own sustainability tests.
‘The Conservative Leader’s own ward will be seriously impacted by the development he campaigned against, but now supports.
‘So serious will be the impact that even one of the Labour councillors who voted for the application, has since declared openly her doubts about it on local radio.
‘So what are residents to make of all this?
‘Supporters of the scheme were soundly beaten at the elections and the new administration declines to put matters right. No wonder people lose faith in politics and politicians.’
Dr Michael Ray - Chairman
City Planner’s Report to the (then) Planning Sub-Committee was seriously flawed. Whether this was deliberate or by omission must be determined: for that reason alone the Council should revisit the “minded to grant” application and we request that it should do so.
Carolyn Oxenbury, on behalf of the Hove Civic Society.
Some reasons which may help with your letter;
- This application involves development on land owned by the City Council which therefore has an interest in the site and cannot make objective planning decisions
- The scheme involves serious over-development that has not been properly assessed and there is no consideration on the impact on the privacy of local residents
- The views of English Heritage have been mis-represented as being in support of the proposals as a whole
- The tall perimeter blocks are located too close to existing housing and will have a major adverse effect on daylight
- Adjoining properties will be overshadowed for many hours
- The internal piazzas will be dark and windy and serious wind turbulence and noise within the scheme will impact on both public and residents
- Many people, residents, local people and visitors would be adversely affected by the impact of the proposed scheme and the increase of cars, public transport and people in this over-developed seafront area has been under-estimated.
July 9th 2007
The Regency Society has received a letter from the City Council's solicitor dated 9th July in response to its Submission of the 29th June which HCS supported. Immediately after the Submission was made, the meeting of the Planning Committee to consider the s106 agreement was brought forward from the 18th July to the 11th July giving the Regency Society only one day for comment on the Council's letter.
The published agenda deals exclusively with the s106 agreement, the subcommittee is invited to approve the agreement, authorise the solicitor to sign it and seal it and does not refer to the Submission as published on the Council's website at 12.10am on Tuesday 10th July.
.
It has been suggested that entry to the Sub-Committee may be restricted by the issue of tickets.
City Planner’s Report to the (then) Planning Sub-Committee was seriously flawed. Whether this was deliberate or by omission must be determined: for that reason alone the Council should revisit the “minded to grant” application and we request that it should do so.
Carolyn Oxenbury, on behalf of the Hove Civic Society.
Some reasons which may help with your letter;
- This application involves development on land owned by the City Council which therefore has an interest in the site and cannot make objective planning decisions
- The scheme involves serious over-development that has not been properly assessed and there is no consideration on the impact on the privacy of local residents
- The views of English Heritage have been mis-represented as being in support of the proposals as a whole
- The tall perimeter blocks are located too close to existing housing and will have a major adverse effect on daylight
- Adjoining properties will be overshadowed for many hours
- The internal piazzas will be dark and windy and serious wind turbulence and noise within the scheme will impact on both public and residents
- Many people, residents, local people and visitors would be adversely affected by the impact of the proposed scheme and the increase of cars, public transport and people in this over-developed seafront area has been under-estimated.
9th July
Letter from the Regency Society to local residents.
Dear Friend,
The Regency Society has been working to reverse the ‘minded to grant’ decision for the Gehry Towers on Hove sea front, made by the City Council on 23 March.
There is no doubt, with the political will, the current scheme could still be refused.
We consulted legal Counsel and received clear advice that the new Council could revisit and reverse the decision, provided there were good planning reasons.
Following the election of a Conservative administration, we have endeavoured to work with its leaders and the Greens. As you know, both had opposed the Gehry scheme before the election.
Regrettably the Tories have done a U turn and are now supporting the scheme,and the Greens are quite simply sitting on their hands.
The Regency Society has submitted to the Council a carefully researched critique of the ‘minded to grant’ planning decision, which advances more than adequate reasons for reversing that decision.
The Chief Executive has declined to put the submission before the Planning Subcommittee and instead has convened a special meeting for Wednesday 11th July at 9.45am, to nod through the final permission for the Gehry buildings.
Be aware that the Tories and the Greens could stop the current development scheme, but have decided not to try.
The Regency Society has provided the bullets but the politicians won’t fire them!!
Please make your disappointment known to your Local Councillors and the Green Party.
Michael Ray
Chairman of the Regency Society of Brighton and Hove
11th July 2007
Despite all the work indicated below, undertaken by the Regency Society and the Hove Civic Society, the planners agreed today to sign off the final package of investment linked to the King Alfred Project
This gives the go-ahead for the development and the building work is expected to start next year and the sports centre could be open two years later.
October 2007
For a full report see the Regency website. (see links)