FEBRUARY 1 2008. THE REGENCY SOCIETY'S VIEW, AND LETTER OF OBJECTION.

Planning Application BH2007/04553 and /04462

Former Royal Alexandra Hospital site, Dyke Road, Brighton :

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 156 residential units and 751 square metres of commercial space.

The Regency Society wishes to OBJECT to the granting of planning approval to the above applications for demolition of the existing buildings and for the proposal for redevelopment of the entire site with 156 flats and 751 square metres of commercial floor space.

These proposals are contrary to national and local plan policies.
In our opinion the proposed redevelopment of the entire site as submitted in this application is contrary to national planning policies (PPG15 clauses 4.26 and 4,27) and to local policy HE8 for the Montpelier and Clifton Hill Conservation Area, in which this site sits at the centre.
Wholesale demolition of all buildings on the site cannot be justified having regard to the conservation area characterisation statement for this conservation area to which the hospital buildings make a positive contribution.
It goes on to state that ‘the hospital is an important part of Brighton life and a well known local landmark’.
The demolition of all the existing buildings and their replacement with the development of flats shown in the application drawings does not ‘preserve the area’s character’ or ‘produce substantial benefits that would outweigh the buildings’ loss’.

For these reasons we consider that, at the very least, key portions of the existing buildings should be retained and be constructively incorporated into the fabric of the new development – thus acting as a palimpsest (or layer of memory) of the former buildings.
It is not for us to re-design the development for the developer.
However, other developments elsewhere have achieved exactly this objective, albeit in entirely different contexts (for example, the recent restaurant development adjoining the cloister at Norwich cathedral.)

We trust that your recommendation will be that the Planning Applications Sub-Committee should REFUSE this application for the above reasons.

MARCH 6 2008
It is reported here that the application has been refused.