More than a dozen neighbours have objected to outline plans to turn an old church hall into a block of up to 11 flats in a Portslade street near Southern Cross.
Apprenticeship and training company Sigta Limited has applied to Brighton and Hove City Council for outline planning permission for the site on the corner of Abinger Road and Hurst Crescent.
The proposals involve demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a two-storey building with a third storey described as “additional accommodation in the roof”.
Officials have written a report recommending conditional approval of the plans at a meeting of the council’s Planning Committee at Hove Town Hall on Wednesday 10 January.
If councillors back the scheme, more detailed plans are expected to be submitted in the future, including information about the design and the final number of flats.
The report to the Planning Committee said that the council had received 16 objections from the public and one letter of support.
Labour councillor Alan Robins, who represents South Portslade, and his former party and ward colleague Les Hamilton also objected to the application.
Mr Hamilton wrote: “This building was built in 1910 and was St Nicolas Church Hall although the church is half a mile away. I attended youth club there.
“There are no three-storey buildings in the road and it should stay that way. Residents feel that existing building could easily be converted into flats thereby saving this historic building.
“Should this not be possible then it should be restricted to two storeys. I am objecting to the height of the building and the loss of a building of historic interest.”
An anonymous objector, whose details were redacted by the council, said: “The proposed building is completely out of character with the local aesthetic from the outside.
“And based on the lack of outside space and small number of bedrooms (it is) clearly aimed at commuters or working professional sharers.
“We need more affordable housing for families in Brighton and Hove and the council should not be allowing developments which clearly don’t offer this.”
The anonymous supporter, whose details were also redacted, said: “I fully support this development. The use of gentle density across the city is a must to ensure sufficient housing is available.”
Sigta submitted plans prepared by planning agent Lewis and Co. It said that the 113-year-old building was “well beyond its intended lifespan” and required extensive work to bring it up to standard.
Sigta’s “planning statement” said: “The principle of a residential redevelopment of the site is considered unobjectionable given the predominance of residential uses in the area and its unsuitable street pattern for commercial uses.
“The submitted layout shows that the site can comfortably accommodate the proposed apartment block without introducing any significant impacts on surrounding uses and properties.”
The Planning Committee is due to meet at 2pm at Hove Town Hall on Wednesday 10 January. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
I like this stuff
I don’t feel these were particularly strong arguments against development. Mr Hamilton’s fond memories of the building are, unfortunately, not very persuasive to me. Further comments regarding the height compared to everything else to me is an argument to build higher across more properties, particularly in such a prime location to do so; considering the need for more housing in the area is extremely high and outstripping supply.
The needs of the many outweigh the … childhood memories of the one …
Existing building is long overdue for demolition, build new and stick to same height as is local
Knock down as many religious buildings as possible.
This building intended by the developers to be demolished has clearly outlasted its original intention – so it is only reasonable to demolish it as the high cost of refurbishment can not be justified in the usual financial terms
Objectors do not like the suggested third storey. The foto shows clearly that this is not a district of particularly attractive residences so making the best of the land is good economic sense
Important info needed – eg. how much is it used as a community asset? Scouts,Guides, older peoples’ groups, playgroups?…and more. How much of this would be replicated in a new development?
The building in question brings back fond memories, I worked for Sigta Ltd for nineteen and a half years (I retired in 2006) during which I saw many internal changes to the building for the benefit of the employee’s and the many delegates who attended our training courses. The building although appearing to be sound has always had a degree of uncertainty regarding its external structure. Yes it will be sad to see it go, but it’s time to move on, to day there is a much higher need for housing and the site being in a residential area would be better served with the planning which has been applied for.
Ultimately planners should listen to the local residents. If demand outstrips supply then people should be encouraged not to move here. Too many local people have been priced out of the market, especially since Brighton gained fake city status.