Plans to redevelop Brighton's 'ugliest building' postponed amid 'oversight'

Image submitted by the developers of what the new development on the Anston House site could look like Image submitted by the developers of what the new development on the Anston House site could look like

A decision on plans to redevelop a building branded the ugliest in Brighton has been postponed.

The demolition of Anston House on Preston Road and plans to build flats and offices up to 15 storeys high on the site was due to be considered by Brighton and Hove City Council’s planning committee this afternoon (March 13).

But the application was pulled from the agenda earlier this week.

Selma Montford, honorary secretary of the Brighton Society, said concerns had been raised about a report on shadowing submitted by developer behind the scheme Urban Splash.

She said a civil engineer and architect, who are members of the society, then conducted their own shadowing report, which found shadows cast across Preston Park would be 30 to 50% longer than the developer’s report had shown.

Gill Mitchell, leader of the Labour and Co-operative Group, said: “I’m rather concerned that the planning department doesn’t seem to have checked this out.

“If where there’s such a big difference in height between the previous and proposed new building, for this question about shadowing not to have been examined thoroughly, I think is an oversight.”

The council’s head of planning Martin Randall said: “In order that everyone can be clear about the potential shadowing effects of the buildings, the applicants have agreed to submit revised information and we’re consulting residents on that.”

Mark Latham of Urban Splash said: “Last week we submitted a further report on overshadowing at Anston House to Brighton and Hove City Council.

“The council have decided that they would like to share this revised information and provide a further period of consultation for residents and statutory consultees to respond.

“Our plans for Anston House still fit within overshadowing requirements.”

Comments(10)

ShorehamBeachcomber says...
6:42pm Wed 13 Mar 13

For Urban Splash read Urban Shade

rolivan says...
6:59pm Wed 13 Mar 13

ShorehamBeachcomber wrote:
For Urban Splash read Urban Shade
For Planning Department read Make it up as you go along and make sure it has to be changed in a few years because we will be retired on a nice Pension and will not affect Me

vogon1 says...
7:09pm Wed 13 Mar 13

So, the plan was to replace an ugly,square,soul less,high rise with an ugly,square,soul less high rise then?

GIVE UP says...
7:36pm Wed 13 Mar 13

vogon1 wrote:
So, the plan was to replace an ugly,square,soul less,high rise with an ugly,square,soul less high rise then?
I must agree, it would have been a better story with a photo of Anatomy House next to the new design

NickBtn says...
7:47pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Clever picture. However even when seen from a distance it still looks large and ugly. Pity that there's not been a bit more imagination and creativity gone into the look

Valerie Paynter says...
9:06pm Wed 13 Mar 13

Well done those Brighton Society members.

I hope questions will be asked internally about why such a serious error was not picked up by the planning department.

Very important to also note that the Regency Society apparently supported this application. Did their people not notice the inaccuracy of information supplied by the developer? They have professional expertise on their committee well capable of spotting it.

mustaphaLeeko says...
10:04pm Wed 13 Mar 13

I'm a great supporter of new and exciting development, but my god is the new building pig ugly!

I honestly think it looks like another cr*p 1960's block of hi-rise flats, plain ugly, totally unimaginative, and looks like a load of cruddy shipping containers stacked on top of each other.

Call themselves architects? What is the world coming to?

bug eye says...
11:03pm Wed 13 Mar 13

It is unbelievable planning officers need no design qualification, it is becoming clearer that this department is not fit for purpose. Where are all the 21st century buildings that should be our future heritage. Council policy is so restrictive it only allows bland developments, and improvements with no new imagination just pastiche and minimal, whether ugly or not, we are stuck in mid 20th century styling that our children will look back on and despair. Anyone going through the planning process will realise they are as obstructive as possible with a policy that can be used against any development proposed.

NickBrt says...
12:01am Thu 14 Mar 13

Can we also get rid of ugly students from Brighton please? (That's most of them by the way)

teaboy says...
11:16am Thu 14 Mar 13

Please make sure you use the time to comment on the application if you haven't already. The council are extremely eager to meet their target of around 450 houses in 2014. Shame they're trying to put over half of that on a single site. Comment here: http://tinyurl.com/a
nston

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree