Horsham today
Horsham Past
Current issues
About us


 Planning: letters of representation

March 2013 

Application comments for DC/13/0255


Application Summary


92 Hurst Road Horsham West Sussex RH12 2DT


Redevelopment of 92 - 98 Hurst Road to form 33 sheltered apartments for the elderly including communal facilities (Category II type accommodation), access, car parking and landscaping

Case Officer:

Amanda Wilkes

Click for further information


Comments Details

Commenter Type:

Member of the Public


Customer objects to the Planning Application

Reasons for comment:

- Design

- Overdevelopment


I am writing on behalf of the Horsham Society to object strongly to this application. The site is in a very prominent position on the corner of Hurst Road and North Parade, which is one of the major entry routes into the town centre. Any development in this position will, for better or worse, create a much greater impact on the streetscene than flanking properties in either North Parade or Hurst Road. Particular care needs to be given to its design. It is therefore disappointing that the developer’s vision “to enhance and enrich the character of this part of Horsham by high quality architecture” has, in our view, so spectacularly failed in its execution. The proposed design is a mish-mash seemingly aimed at incorporating every material and style to be found in neighbouring buildings, good and bad. The result is an over-fussy building with the worst characteristics of some of its more recent neighbours and no character of its own. It fails both to deliver the developer’s own brief of “a coherent and highly legible development with a stimulating and distinctive character” and the Council’s policy of ensuring that new development is of a high quality. The layout is constrained by the decision to retain the “air raid structure” (presumably on cost grounds) and the need to retain the large Oak tree and as a result is cramped and over-intensive. There is inadequate provision for parking. Older people now commonly drive into their eighties and there should be at least one parking space for each flat. There is also very limited outdoor space for residents. Whilst a suitable development could be higher on the corner than the rest of the block, the present double gable is over-bearing. It is noted that the developments with which comparisons are drawn are all three storied, not four as proposed here. This is a missed opportunity to produce a modern well designed landmark building which does justice to the site. We urge the Council to refuse this application on the grounds that it is too intensive, too large, with too little car parking and outdoor space, and above all of poor design. We note this is for committee decision. If the officer recommendation were to be for approval we would wish to speak at the meeting. John Steele Secretary, Planning Sub Committee