A planning application has been made by Brunswick Developments Group plc for a substantial development at the Outer Harbour at Brighton Marina.
The designers are Wilkinson Eyre Architects.

A comprehensive townscape and visual study of the impact of these proposals has been made by The Richard Coleman Consultancy.

The photomontages and commentary shown here are only a few taken from their most comprehensive submission: members may, or may not, be in agreement with the sentiments expressed. Indeed, many may feel that the comments regarding the impact of the development on Kemp Town and Marine Gate are optimistic, since it will undoubtedly destroy the existing open views, as shown in these images.
The planning application may be examined at Hove Town Hall.

Click image for an enlarged view. New views added May 27 2005

Aerial photograph of the development area

The Committee had a full presentation from Jim Eyre (Wilkinson Eyre), Richard Coleman (The Richard Coleman Consultancy) and Andrew Goodall (Brunswick Developments) on 20 January 2005.
We were able to ask a number of questions and have a full discussion after they had left. Comments below:

We should like to begin by complimenting Brunswick Developments on the quality of the submission of the planning application. We would like it to set a standard for other developers.

We feel that there is much to commend the proposals. Unlike some other comments that we have read, we see nothing wrong, in principle, in using the spreading beach. The acquisition of new developable land in the city’s constrained context is a bonus. The whole committee was enthusiastic about the positioning and design of the tower. We believe that it will add spectacular elements to lateral views along sea front, giving almost a light house effect. Indeed, we think that this scheme would provide the best architectural quality in the Marina so far and, as such, should encourage improvements in the future when other sites are redeveloped. In detail, the marine influences are well expressed in the design and, if built, the new buildings would reduce the impact of unsightly ‘warehouse-like’ buildings such as the David Lloyd centre. The tower would provide a new and unparalleled view point for the City and the new bridges are very welcome. The western bridge would greatly improve the pedestrian approach to the Marina both from the point of view of convenience but also aesthetically. The eastern bridge would be not only a visual delight but it would enable far better pedestrian circulation around the Marina. We were concerned about the traffic impact and the lack of car parking but, having heard Brunswick Developments’ response, we are convinced that the strategy is correct. However, there is one view that it might be unrealistic to expect residents not to have access to local vehicle parking, the lack of which would inevitably put extra strain on neighbouring areas

But we do have concerns. Although gaps have been provided in the layout of the lower blocks, there will be a significant impact on views over the cliff line from the Marine Gate area and, obliquely, from Lewes Crescent, Sussex Square and the Kemptown terraces. We have listened carefully to the explanations given by Richard Coleman and we do think they have some merit. In this connection we have asked for some more potential view studies particularly from the south west corner of Lewes Crescent.[NOW SHOWN BELOW] We have noted Mr Coleman’s enthusiasm for the proposals and his belief that they will enhance views from the Kemptown area. This brings us to our major criticism. We note that Wilkinson Eyre have set the tower well forward of the north-south blocks so that it can be read clearly as a tower but we feel that this objective would be better achieved if those blocks were reduced in height allowing the full elegance of the tower and the dramatic changes of height between the tower and the north -south blocks to be appreciated. This would have the added benefit of reducing the impact of the scheme on the Marine Gate area and further afield.

We continue to have very major reservations about the Arena proposals and its impact on the area and wonder how the Wilkinson Eyre project can be judged adequately without knowing the Arena’s final content and that of the ASDA.

Members of the committee also have some reservations over the provision of affordable housing on this site. We know that it is Government and City Council policy that such development should be provided but we are not sure that the Marina is the right location for housing for those on lower incomes. However, we were partly reassured by Andrew Goodall’s response on this issue.

These are the Society’s views but we may need to amend or add to them when we see Richard Coleman’s further work.For the advoidance of doubt, the Society feels that if the concerns on the lower buildings expressed in paragraph four are not met and the problem of dealing with other schemes, set out in paragraph five, is not addressed, then the application should be refused.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE COMMENTS ATTACHED TO THESE IMAGES ARE THOSE
OF THE RICHARD COLEMAN CONSULTANCY AND NOT THOSE OF THE SOCIETY

Back to top

4 NOVEMBER 2005

It is reported in the local press that council officers have recommended the entire proposed development for approval.

The report to the city council planning sub-committee may be downloaded here (2.09 Mb)

14 NOVEMBER 2005

The Planning Sub Committee has rejected the application by 9 votes to 3

Plans for a substantial development at Brighton Marina were turned down by Brighton & Hove City Council at a planning meeting on Friday 11 November.The council’s planning committee said it thought the scheme, which included a 40 storey tower, was not suitable for the Marina site for four reasons:

• The siting, layout, height and visibility of the scheme meant it failed to relate satisfactorily to the existing marina development and was out of keeping with nearby conservation areas

• The size, height and bulk of the scheme represented an overdevelopment

• There would be insufficient scope for public and private amenity space

• The development would generate a significant volume of traffic and parking problems

The proposed development, designed by architects Wilkinson Eyre, comprised 12 buildings ranging from two to 40 storeys in height and would have been located on a platform deck over the Spending Beach behind the existing David Lloyd fitness centre, casino and bowling alley.

The planning sub-committee, chaired by Cllr Les Hamilton, voted down the plans nine to three.

8 FEBRUARY 2006

It is reported that the appeal against the refusal of planning consent by the city council will be decided by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Back to top

14 APRIL 2006

A revised scheme has been announced. The amount of proposed development has been reduced. The number of flats proposed is now 853 compared with 988. Car parking has been increased from 179 to 496 spaces. The site coverage has been scaled down by 25%. This has been achieved by removing the E-W connecting blocks between the lower towers; this has the added benefit that the wall like impact from views from the north will be replaced by views through the development. The lower blocks would also be lower. The 40 storey tower would remain unchanged.

Our original observations welcomed some of the development especially the quality of the architecture, the proposed bridges and the elegance of the main tower. But we objected to the lower blocks which we felt detracted from the beacon-like main tower and presented an ugly mass from views from the west and east. The changes are a move in the direction that we asked for but have not gone far enough.

Click image for an enlarged view

Full details of this revised application may be found on the City Council Website - Application No. BH2006/01124

In addition to the matters considered under this planning application, there is also considerable concern as to the restrictions placed upon any development at the Marina that rises above the top of the Cliffs. This was embodied in the Act of Parliament enacted when the seawall was built. This was seen as necessary to prevent overdevelopment and to protect the locale from "cityfication", since it was, after all, to be a Marina, not a housing estate or shopping centre.
 

28 APRIL 2006

This application was discussed at length at the first meeting of the committee since the AGM when new members joined and other members have left. The Committee feels that, whilst it would agree that the changes made are an improvement, the principal consideration should be the height of the buildings in relation to the cliff line as envisaged in the protective sections of the Marina Act.

It is quite clear from the debate in Parliament at the time, that the Act was intended to preclude buildings breaching this height line in perpetuity. Therefore, the Society feels that this requirement should not be set aside even by more recent Supplementary Planning Guidance. The Parliamentary Act carries far more weight than locally approved policy statements and, therefore, the Society requests the City Council , as the guardian of the Act, to use its powers to preclude development that breaches the cliff line limit set out in the Act.

If it is decided that the Act is not a material planning consideration, we believe that the City Council should inform the developers that it will not agree to their proposals under the Act and advise them to withdraw the planning application.

HOME | ABOUT THE SOCIETY | JOIN!| LATEST | ISSUES | LECTURES | NEWSLETTER | EVENTS | LINKS | DOWNLOADS | ARCHIVE | CONTACT
all content copyright ©The Regency Society 2005/7
Last updated:09/05/2008