With the ‘urgent’ need for housing, Shoreham-by-Sea has become a building site. The developments on the Western Harbour Arm and the riverside make themselves known by their size and they surround the historic town centre.
Within the town there are two new prospective developments in the conservation area itself: a redevelopment of Chantry House on East Street and the area behind it, and a new development on Ham Road, described as a ‘companion’ to the old Burrell Hotel. What is the impact on the historic built environment of these two proposals?
Chantry House
There is a new planning application for this site on East Street and New Road in the centre of Shoreham and its conservation area.
Chantry House (formerly the HSBC bank) and the land behind it is an interesting proposition. How do you fit 6 houses and three flats into what one thinks is a small space in the heart of town? The developers intend to “retain the historic buildings to both frontages in East Street and New Road, which are to be converted, partially extended, and fully refurbished”.
You would have to judge for yourself, but it seems that the developers have been careful to minimise the impact on the conservation area and have utilised the space for the current housing needs by taking down garages and sympathetically extending the rear of existing buildings.
Is this an example of ‘good’ conservation in a conservation area? What do you think? You can view the planning application AWDM/1419/23 on the Council’s website.
Perkins & Robins Garage
Another recent planning application proposes to demolish the Perkins & Robins garage on Ham Road and replace it with a modern five-storey development of flats and shops. It is adjacent to the building that was once a hotel and has the recently opened Wild Lemon restaurant on the ground floor.
The original Burrell Arms Hotel was built to cater for the tourism generated by the introduction of the railway. It was the first building to greet you as you alighted the train. It was built to make a statement on Brunswick Road, a main throughfare. Perkins & Robins garage was the coach house for the hotel and over time became a garage as the motorcar became common. It is not hard to visualise it as would have been in the 1870’s.
The re-development of the hotel into flats (William de Braose House) and a restaurant did not make much difference to the streetscape of Brunswick Road and Ham Road a century ago. It was a case of a building being repurposed to meet the needs of a growing town.
The proposal to build six flats and 2 ground floor retail spaces in a ‘companion’ building marginally higher than the original Burrell Hotel would, in our opinion, dramatically change the sense of character in that part of the conservation area, particularly as it would overshadow the station, itself a building of note.
It is interesting to note that on the north side of Ham Road recent developments, Caxton House (originally a Victorian school) and a pair of semi-detached cottages, made every effort to keep the streetscape. Whereas the developers of Perkins & Robins Garage have proposed what they describe as a “contemporary” architectural treatment for the site. The planning application is AWDM/1936/22.
What do you think?
Both developments are radical, one in terms of space, the other in terms of design and impact. And critically, both are within the Shoreham-by-Sea town centre conservation area. But what constitutes good or bad conservation when developing within a conservation area?
Very worrying proposal ! Brutal minimalist design totally unsympathetic to the existing area which is a huge contrast in this row of simple Victorian terraced houses
a terrace which was itself extended all in character not so long ago , remember ?
The East Street development seems more sympathetic.
The Perkins and Robins site is distressing. It moves the concept of housing people in flats without space to sit or play outside right into the conservation area – bad enough on the outskirts of the town. I hope the Society is going to object.
Totally out of character which could set a trend for the ‘uglyfication’ of the area. The Planning Committee would be insane to accept it.
Perfect examples of what is in keeping within the conservation area and what is not. The Perkins and Robins site has been approached the same way as developments on Brighton Road – cram in as much as you can. I also hope the Society is going to object to this
I have tried to login to Adur council planning site to comment on the P+R plans but it is not letting me access to comment
Sorted now
All frontages of historic buildings should be retained and it is an architectural commitment to design around this. I would refer anyone to the wonderful Mall built behind the Regency frontages on the Parade in Leamington Spa as an example. Unfortunately the planning department in this area seem to lack any form of architectural empathy.
It’s just a case of , what’s the cheapest way ahead?Knock it down and start again.NO,!!
The development in East Street seems fine but the development in Ham Road is totally out of character, too modern and too high. Something like this should not be allowed in a conservation area.
People need to object if they are not happy with the above. I have been on the planning site and there aren’t many comments/objections.
While I support the East Street proposal, the one in Ham Road is something different – a new extreme in ugliness! I am sure the developers could do better and could still convert to housing without destroying the character of a very important streetscape. This proposal must be thrown out so that we can see whether the developers have a ‘plan B’!
I object most strongly to the “modernist” proposal for the Perkins and Robins site. Like so many of the new developments around the town, the plan is architecturally bereft of beauty and takes no account of the history of the area and its the style and shape of the existing housing.
Disappointing to see another ‘stack up high sell em for max profit’ … Don’t like Perkins and Robins design. Thanks for sharing …
For info have objected based upon: Being out of character; impact on conservation area; impact re space / light for residents.. also feel that proposed and overwhelming height of proposed development would make this entrance / exit from the station feel less safe/welcoming.
I can see why people find the design for the Perkins and Robins site incongruous with the existing low-rise housing. However, is the Perkins and Robins garage really more beautiful than the proposed design? I don’t recall ever stopping to admire that garage….And even in a conservation area does every new build have to imitate Georgian and Victorian buildings in order to be acceptable?
….Like others, I like the New Street proposal, not because of the architecture but because it is an imaginative use of a complicated brown field site for low rise, low density housing. Not every development has to be huge!