BH2007/03454 Land at Brighton Marina

Demolition of Asda superstore to create 3 -10 storey building with enlarged store (790 sqm increase) and 2,702 sqm of other Class A1-A5 (retail/restaurant/drinking) uses on ground floor with 764 residential units above and community hall (314 sqm), and new pedestrian/cyclist bridge link from cliff to roof of building and associated engineering works. Demolition of petrol filling station to create 3 - 28 storey building with 204 sqm of Class A uses at ground floor and 148 residential units above. Demolition of McDonalds restaurant to create 5 - 17 storey building with enlarged drive-thru restaurant (212 sqm increase) and 148sqm of other Class A uses and 233 residential units above. Demolition of estates office to create 3-4 storey building of 35 residential units. Demolition of western end of multi-storey car park to create 6-11 storey building adjacent to western breakwater of 114 residential units with stair access from breakwater to Park Square. Demolition of eastern end of multi-storey car park to create single storey petrol filling station, pedestrian footbridge and new lift and stair access. Total: 1294 residential units. Associated car parking spaces (748 residential, 736 commercial), cycle parking (1339 residential, 314 in public realm), servicing, plant, refuse, CHP unit, public and private amenity space, hard & soft landscaping and outdoor recreation areas. Change of use of two A1 retail units (524 sqm) within Octagon to medical use (Class D1). Alterations to vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist access and circulation, including new roundabout and transport interchange behind Waterfront.

Objections and Representations of the Regency Society of Brighton and Hove.

Context
The Society believes that there are opportunities to improve the planning, architecture and townscape of the Brighton Marina. Some of the presently developed sites are eyesores and reflect badly on the importance of the location. The Society will welcome and support improvements which remedy existing shortcomings providing that they fit well into the landscape.

Amount of development
The adopted Local Plan for Brighton and Hove (1995) does not appear to include Brighton Marina in its housing target figures. (Policy HO1) nor does the Supplementary Planning Guidance document no.20 Brighton Marina adopted in 2003.
There appears to have been no objective pro-active assessment of the capacity of the Marina.
The new proposal would add 1294 units to the 853 already permitted on the outer harbour site for Brunswick Developments; a total of 2147 units. In addition a further 111 units have been proposed for the Black Rock Arena site.

We believe that this is a gross over-development.

Architecture
The society acknowledges that the architects of the proposals have a well-deserved reputation for excellence but their proposals do have to be examined objectively as was the case with their Beetham Tower scheme for Brighton Station which was rejected following a public inquiry. We feel that many of the individual buildings in the scheme are well proportioned and elegant in concept but our reservations stem from their impact on townscape.

Townscape
The Society objected to the Brunswick Developments scheme because of its impact on the cliff line and the Kemptown estate. Whilst it could be argued that the 40-storey tower, known as Flying Forties, was set well away from the cliff line and could be read as a sea-girt ‘needle’ in the terms of the initial studies prior to the production of SPG20, the tall building proposed in this application will have a far more serious impact on the Estate as it will impinge on view much closer to it. This is clear from the applicant’s own submissions (eg Photomontages T26-28 of Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement and C6 and C& from the addendum).

It is noted that the view points used for assessing the development on Lewes Crescent and the Kemptown estate are from road level. Regency buildings were centred on the first floor, the piano nobile, and the assessments should reflect this. The impact of the new development would be even more obtrusive from these viewpoints. The cliff-line restraint, set out in the Marina Act, is breached by not only the three high rise blocks but the lower buildings situated on the present ASDA site. The new buildings will deprive residents of the Kemp Town area from glimpsing the water and boats of the Marina.

Internal Spaces
We are concerned that some of the flats only have a northern aspect and are very close to the cliffs.
Their occupants will have sub-standard living conditions

Infrastructure including traffic.
The Society is concerned that the increasing amount of development planned on the site still has only one access point to the off site road system. This leaves residents, workers and visitors vulnerable in the event of emergencies which could involve the blocking of this one access and the ‘trapping’ of a large number of people on the site. The site is, in effect, a giant cul de sac. In earlier times there was a limit placed ion the amount of dwellings served by such a road for the common sense reason of allowing for alternatives during emergencies. The rationale for this policy is still sound.

Some of the traffic figures given in the Environmental Statement seem very low. No more than 311 and 375 movements in the morning and evening peaks (table 8.4) are predicted from both developments. Other are frankly risible. This present development is calculated not to generate more than 20 worker trips and one HGV trip in the peak hours during construction. (tables 8.11 and 8.12)!!!

In addition the Arena proposals are based on an assumption of accomodating 204 major events a year; each having 11,000 spectators. Although there are suggestions that the visitors to the Arena and the 42 Corporate Hospitality suites will come by public transport, this is unrealistic and there is bound to be a knock-on impact on the Marina with visitors parking there and walking to the Arena. The Cumulative Impact Statement (para 6.41) states that the Arena development would compromise emergency access.

Flooding
It is noted that the consultants feel that the site is safe from inundation from the sea but in view of climate change, the defences will need to be raised in 2060 (paragraph 13.27 of Chapter 13 of the Environmental Assessment). This seems too sanguine to us.

Conclusion
This scheme should be rejected.

Brave New World - or Croydon comes to the Seaside?