Bond Street La(i)ne - nameplate change update

The proposed change to the Bond Street La(i)ne nameplate to correct the spelling has today been put out to a new consultation.  Someone apparently queried the wording of the original public notice. The only material difference between the original and new notices is a change  in the definition of the time period allowed for objections to be lodged.

The original notice read:- "Any person aggrieved by the intended order may within 21 days of the date of this notice appeal to Brighton Magistrates Court etc."
The new notice reads:- "Any person aggrieved by the intended order may within 21 consecutive days after the date of this notice appeal to Brighton Magistrates Court etc. "

The first version was apparently interpreted as 21 working days whereas the Court works on 21 consecutive days. Somebody putting in an objection at the last minute might have been told it fell outside the allotted time period of 21 consecutive days.

The Public Notice posted today.

It seems likely that the Order will in fact go to the Magistrates Court. It is possible to see that some residents might be put to some inconvenience and expense by the name change. As the original misspelling was a result of an unfortunate recommendation by the Borough Engineer in 1981 one hopes some compensation might be on offer to residents so affected.

Orignal paper provided by the Borough Engineer for the Highways & Transport Committee meeting on 17th August 1981

191 Kingsway

191 Kingsway is not devoid of architectural charm. It has a mixture of square and canted bays, a quirky balcony, amazing sprinkling of small windows on the east elevation and unusual side entrance. The fact that it is only two storeys plus loft high, among otherwise much taller buildings, provides a pleasing variation to the Kingsway roofline. 

Planning application BH2011/03956 called for demolition of 191 and replacement with the central block shown in the visualisation below.  In this picture the building on the right is an artist's impression of what might replace the Sackville Hotel (no.189 Kingsway). This collapsed a few years ago during conversion. The latest application for the Sackville Hotel site, BH2012/00982, has yet to come before the Planning Committee. 

Meanwhile it can be seen that the building proposed for 191 Kingsway extends over what used to be a 20ft wide gap between the buildings providing, in the bottom right-hand corner, an entrance to basement car parking. The gap left between the building is now minimal and the developers of 189 objected to the plans for 191 on the basis of loss of light. The Sackville Hotel had windows on the west elevation and the developer argues that they are entitled to reinstate these without loss of amenity. However legal advice to the Planning Committee was that this was not a planning consideration but rather a matter for the interested parties to resolve elsewhere.

In the end the Planning Committee, at their meeting yesterday, voted to refuse the application for 191 Kingsway on the grounds that it was out of scale and character with neighbouring properties on Kingsway and the nearby side streets of Walsingham Road and Sackville Gardens.

These rather vague criticisms will surely give the architect considerable difficulty in deciding exactly what modifications are required. On the other hand,  intentionally or not, the decision to refuse  seems rather clever. It presumably gives time for the application for no.189 to be approved, complete with side windows,  and, if so, future plans for no.191 will have to reinstate the full gap. This will inevitably reduce the size of the redevelopment.

Other reading: 149/151 Kingsway update

Patcham pond, then & now

1907ish:-

2010:-

(Not quite with the same perspective but the viewpoint was restricted by the parked cars.)

Patcham Conservation Area gets Article 4(1) Direction -

Following a period of representation in which no objections were received the Patcham Article 4(1) Direction has today been confirmed. The Direction removes certain permitted development rights in the conservation area, in order to  allow greater control over incremental change in the area, thus preserving and enhancing its special character.

Planning permission is now required for:-

• The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling (including extensions and altering windows, doors or roof coverings)
• Alterations to the roof of a dwelling house, including the addition of roof lights. 
• Provision or replacement of a hard surface within the curtilage of a dwelling house.
• Erection of a porch to a dwelling house.
• Alteration, replacement or removal of a chimney stack on a dwelling house.
• Installation, alteration or replacement of solar PV or solar thermal equipment on a dwelling house.
• Demolition, alteration or erection of a boundary wall, fence, railings or a gate.
• Painting the exterior of a building, where the building has not previously been painted, or where a significant change in colour is proposed.

Robert Goff's West Pier

The Curator gives a short, illuminating talk about one of the prints from the current exhibiton in the Print Gallery, Brighton Museum.