Gasworks Planning Application – Preview

Gasworks Planning Application – Preview
View from Marine Gate. The image is taken from higher ground to the east so the true height of the new buildings is obscured by the bank and wall in the foreground

Here are a few images taken from the Berkeley Group’s planning application Ref. BH2021/04167

The planning application documents which – it is alleged – you can easily view on the Council website – are very badly and confusingly set out.  It is a nightmare for the average person trying to get some idea from the information buried in the documentation, of the sheer scale and mass of this huge development proposal.

Here are a few images we have extracted to give you a flavour of just what a massive conglomeration of tall buildings is being proposed.  

In our view it is a gross overdevelopment of the site.

It also comes with a Health Warning: these images are the ones the developer has selected to show his proposals in the best possible light using a variety of visual tricks to make the buildings appear smaller than they actually will in reality.  

If you wish to object to this hugely inappropriate development you can lodge your objections right up to the date of the planning hearing.  For information on how to object go to: https://t.co/nXZccRGDQs

 

View from the South West at the south end of Boundary Road. The two new buildings are 10 storeys high. Marine Gate to the right is 8
Elevation to Boundary Road. This gives an indication of the heights and out of scale massing of new blocks of flats towering above and just behind the new three and four-storey townhouses on Boundary Road
Sketch view from the south west. The numbers show the number of storeys of each block
View from Bristol Gardens looking south east
South Elevation – how it will look from out to sea
View from Wilson Avenue. Although we’re out in the suburbs eleven massive city scale blocks will be just down the bottom of your street
Site section East-west viewed from the south. How much sun will penetrate into the central space between the tall blocks?
The developer seems to think it will be a wide sunny open space. It will be a windswept canyon in deep shadow most of the year. See below
Imagine a south-westerly gale ripping through here
View looking east down Eastern Road from Bristol Place. Would you want this at the bottom of your street?
Block Plan

 

There are a total of 553 flats:

36 Studio flats (one room) 

162 1-bedroom flats

306  2-bedroom flats, 

36  3-bedroom flats

10 Town Houses

160 car spaces

632 bicycle spaces

There is also about 2,700 sq.m of commercial space.  To put that in context, that’s about the area of 22 houses

 

 

 

 

There is NO commitment to affordable housing in the planning application.  If there are going to be discussions about any affordable housing at all, it will be the subject of the usual fudge culminating in the argument that none will be viable.  We’ve been there before.

De-contamination procedures are excluded from this planning application. Berkeley want to get planning approval for this development before they make any detailed proposals for how they will remediate the contaminated ground below the site, which they want to be approved as a condition afterwards.  This would drastically reduce the control the Council would be able to exercise over these vitally important de-contamination issues.  Some residents in Southall Middlesex suffered severe health issues after the Berkeley Group’s Gasworks development there.  They still do.  

You can’t take any shortcuts or risks with decontamination. Decontamination proposals must be considered as an integral part of the planning approval process and be fully transparent – not decided behind closed doors afterwards.

Grade 1 Listed Lewes Crescent and Sussex Square are 100m to the west.  

Not one of Berkeley’s images show the relationship of this massive building complex so close to Brighton’s finest Regency Terraces and Crescents.

20 thoughts on “Gasworks Planning Application – Preview

  1. The ratio of flats and car park places is shocking. The wind modelling is schoking. I would relly need a visual shadow modelling, I am worried that the buildig in live in will be cast with shadow. Lack of affordable housing is shocking The decontamination plan must be integral plan of the planning process.

  2. @Liz @Elvira …Have no doubt if you are immediate neighbours of this development you will be overshadowed. You can see an example of the shadowing on page 47 of the Environmental Impact Report when you zoom into the rendered image from Red Hill. It shows heavy shadowing to the west of the site at that particular time of day (time of day not given, time of year not given.) It does not look good I’m afraid. There are many grounds on which you object to such an over development of this site.

  3. I think they look great, and will certainly hide the view of those other two tower blocks overlooking the sea. Much needed homes for families and people being priced out of the city by greedy boomerism.

  4. @Mark Fry. I disagree Mark both on look and your families and price angle.
    Reading the planning application documents the developer predicts approx 5% of the residents being of primary and secondary school age. UK averages suggest under 16 year olds to be about 18% of the population. Not very scientific, but combining this idea with the developers suggestions as to where the families should reside on the gasworks development I do not feel families is their market at all and merely a token gesture.
    As for priced out of the city – I agree with you there, but again do not believe the gasworks developer will supply affordable housing for anyone, and I am surprised you believe they will. I think if you read some of the planning application documents your confidence would be shaken if not diminished.

    https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/truth-property-developers-builders-exploit-planning-cities

  5. Affordable housing and less commercial space needed! Also, nobody has mentioned just how ugly the design is in our beautiful city…

  6. Yet again developers cramming in as much residential properties on a postage, just to make as much money as they can to the detriment to surrounding are and local people. Infrastructure and resources locally are already at there capacity, with this additional housing stock along with the hundreds of student accommodation, and major residential development in Hove. Future developments proposed around and outside the City, the resources can not cope. Most of these developments are out of the reach local residents and are bought by people out of the area for investment 🤷‍♂️

  7. This is a horrific monstrous use of the land. It’s completely out of scale to properties in the area it’s a blight on the landscape. This should never have got planning permission. in kemptown planning permission is denied for plastic window frames as it is a conservation area how on earth can this be agreed

  8. Am a member of the Society and submitted my objection on 27 Dec, although it didn’t appear on the council website, so chased it up, received council apology and it is now up there. May I respectfully request that you mention the flint wall in your official comments., which I did mention in my objection. There is now comment from the council heritage team about possible heritage designation of the wall and the council’s pre-application advice to Berkeley about its preservation (which they ignored and have just demolished it in their application). The wall is rather key to what happens in Boundary Road and what residents of Arundel Street, whose properties back on to Boundary Road and the proposed monstrosity, might expect to see out there in the future. Could you possibly give it a mention in your submission?

  9. So how many will be second/holiday/bought for investment and airb&b homes. These will probably not make the slightest dent in actual homes needed by Brighton residents.

  10. Think it should be stopped ✋ it will be an eyesore on our beautiful area. Cancelling out light sun .pollution in the area will go up as well.

  11. Shocking ..agree with all the comments against this and WD add how on earth is the city’s infrastructure to cope….like sewers etc. It’s all about Greed and our glorious Regency crescents nearby will now pallor into insignificance…. Shame on them while hard working Bunker Housing co-op do as should be done and battle for planning for totally eco AND affordable housing in our city

  12. Southern Water’s comments on the sewage situation seem a tad hesitant. They’ve only done a desktop study so far and would want a lot of time and phased installation of the system. Given their dubious track record of burst pipes, discharging raw sewage into rivers and the sea on numerous occasions etc etc, that may well become an issue as well as everything else.

  13. The comments on here really evidence a lack of knowledge and insight into city planning and development in their benightedness. I’m looking forward to the developments personally. That brown site was a waste of space, and the injection of finance into the area will boost local services and business. The developer has done its due diligence, and ultimately, BHCC has no power to prevent its construction, rendering most residents comments moot. However, the council certainly should be negotiating to ensure that critical facilities such as education, waste management, and healthcare are given subsidiaries to grow with the influx of people this will provide.

  14. overscaled 12 storey grey soul less tower blocks a kin to 1960s post war modernism void of architectural quality or sympathy to topography of local history of area with lewes square sussex square and french apartments all fine examples of good architecture brighton can be proud of. These towers are overscaled in context to surrounding environment character sea views from Wilson Avenue and South Downs area of natural beauty nature history. How can architects berkeley get the design so wrong and demolish existing flint wall from brightons fishing heritage past on the lane at back of arundel street. The marina has built similar style ugly tower blocks which do the area no architectural favours visitors comment how souless and unimaginative they are.Common brighton we can be so much better , build back better not worse or all our futures

  15. There is nothing to give this over developed built for profit development an identity or destination feel, it could be any development in any city. Lewes square has some of best architecture in the country Grade 1 listed facades grandeur and grace. The Gas Works development achieves no architectural award for materials style design or context of place in historical Brighton. We could have created more sympathetic materials to marry into locality of Brighton and Sussex not a juxtaposition car bunkle that needs bull dozed in 30 years – woefully out of scale which dwarfs local neighbouring housing , plonked down on postage stamp like a badly designed lego set- void of quality history and quality craftmanship. A nod to our past fishing history , sympathetic to our famous seaside environment using natural materials and something more in scale – not obliterating sea views from south downs park and surrounding streets would have been more appropriate to enhance our local community , architecture history. Sad to see this over developed mess so close to a conservation area of outstanding natural beauty flanked by the sea .promenade and South downs. World famous Brighton deserves better in terms of good architecture to prmote our city heritage status.

  16. The Brighton Gasometer was ugly but this 12 storey mass of densely packed tower block buildings is just a disgrace , it obliterates the views from the downs and is out of scale with local environment and an area of natural beauty. It dominates the sky line and detracts from the sea views from surrounding streets. A few tower blocks taller in height would have created more viewpoints and more open space on the ground to navigate the views from surrounding vantage points to enhance & compliment local area. The Gas works was ugly but this over development is uglier by far. It looks like that ugly building which was recently built in the Marina which looks like tall soviet grey box . soul less and bland fit only for the bulldozers wrecking ball. Brighton needs a better sense of architecture to reflect its culture , heritage and quality past present future not this mass production profiteering

  17. The opposite to what they have drawn up with architects void of any real imagination; creativity or true vision – sympathetic to natural views currently of the South Downs towards the coast line and sea , an eyesore blighting the landscape tower blocks to block out sea views for those all who live in this community who enjoy the natural beauty and landscape from Sheepcote valley. Why not design tall towers in middle in a linear fashion to helps save sea views for our community to enjoy walking on the beautiful south downs.
    The quakers would be quaking in their boots at this poor design destroying our views of the sea entirely out of character to areas history style design feel.

    Berkeley Group builds homes and destroys neighbourhoods

    Our passion and purpose is to build quality homes, strengthen communities, and make a lasting positive difference to people’s lives-
    by destroying views and over developing for profit not in keeping with surrounding architecture or history of site or community

    We specialise in brownfield regeneration, working together with our partners to revive underused land and create unique, sustainable and nature-rich places where communities thrive and people of all ages and backgrounds can enjoy a great quality of life –
    destroying heritage and ignoring feedback from brighton residents

    Our vision is to be a world-class business, trusted to transform the most challenging sites into exceptional places and to maximise our positive impact on society, the economy and the natural world.
    void of vision just lego blocks built for maximum profit

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.