Metal railings and gates could go up all round the Royal Pavilion Gardens, obscuring views, if councillors approve a planning application from trustees next week.
The controversial proposal – in part intended to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack – has been included as part of a wider set of plans that include a revamp of the public toilets.
Critics fear that the proposed gates and 7ft (2.1m) railings are part of a plan to close the gardens at night. They do not accept the rationale of reinstating the estate’s historic appearance.
The grounds have been linked to a number of violent crimes and sex offences in the past although the effective closed-circuit television (CCTV) system has helped solve a number of cases.
One concern is that anti-social behaviour and crime would be displaced to areas less well-served by security cameras and that more police patrols would be a better solution.
Another concern is that putting up railings and gates would be a first step towards using the gardens as a venue where people have to pay to enter the historically free gardens.
Brighton and Hove Museums said: “There are no plans to close the gates in order to charge to enter the garden at all. Occasionally, as with the ice rink, areas of the garden may be used for a special event where a charge may be applied.”
Those objecting to the planning application include the North Laine Community Association (NLCA), the Brighton Society, the Regency Society and the Living Streets Group.
Their concerns include the loss of longstanding open views of the grade I listed Royal Pavilion and the potential loss of access to the grounds.
The plans have been submitted to Brighton and Hove City Council – the site’s ultimate owner – by Brighton and Hove Museums, the trading name of the Royal Pavilion and Museums Trust.
The application is due to be considered by the council’s Planning Committee at a meeting at Hove Town Hall next week.
A report has been published, with officials advising the committee to grant planning permission and listed building consent for the work to the grade II listed gardens.
The proposals include remodelling the existing toilet block. It would include a Changing Places accessible toilet and separate gender-neutral cubicles facing towards instead of away from the gardens. This is intended to reduce anti-social behaviour in the toilets.
The new building would include a kiosk, an accessible toilet, the proposed Changing Places toilet, a baby changing cubicle and three individual toilets.
Trustees also want to create an outdoor learning area next to the Dome.
The trust said that the landscaping would include the restoration and reinstatement of historic walls, metal railings and gates.
Modern trees and hedges would be removed under the plans which are aimed at restoring the original views created by the Royal Pavilion’s architect, John Nash.
The 18 objections to the proposals include those from community groups and civic societies.
They criticise the effect that the proposals would have on the Royal Pavilion, specifically the railings enclosing the site, as well as the potential loss of seating by the Pavilion Gardens café.
The NLCA criticised the prospect of a loss of public access to the site as well as the height of the railings and produced its own graphic suggesting that the applicant’s were not entirely accurate.
Brighton and Hove Museums said: “Our planning documents illustrate a human as approx 6ft (illustrated in blue in the image). The images are simply artist impressions to aid understanding of the concept. We are clear throughout the report that the height of the railings is 2100mm, including the base they stand on.”
The NLCA said: “We believe that the very existence of railings and gates would inevitably add to pressure to close the garden at night, potentially leaving only a few hours of daytime access during winter months.
“Local people greatly value their ability to walk through the garden late into the evenings or in the early mornings, to admire the Pavilion and enjoy the tranquillity of the garden as they pass through or walk by on their way to and from their homes.”
The association said that key views of the estate would be “impeded” by the proposed railings.
The NLCA and the Brighton Society cited a report to the council’s Strategy, Finance and City Regeneration Committee last August in support of maintaining 24-hour access to the gardens.
The Brighton Society said: “Fencing and gating the gardens would send an evocative message to residents and visitors that the gardens are private and not for general public access and enjoyment.
“We are concerned that the railings would form a visual and psychological barrier between the community and the gardens.”
Historic England and the council’s Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) were among those supporting the scheme.
Historic England has included the gardens on its “at risk” register since 2017 and, along with the Brighton and Hove Museums Trust, commissioned a “heritage crime report” from specialists Aldwic Research Consultancy.
The report cited problems with anti-social behaviour, drug use, a high risk of serious crime and the potential for a terrorist attack targeting the Royal Pavilion.
Historic England said: “It is judged that the technical, staffing and community engagement recommendations alone will not prove sufficient to mitigate significantly the night-time risks of crime to the site.
“The report concludes that the new boundary railings, walls and gates (2.1 metres in height) are an important intervention, as part of a suite of measures, to protect the site and are capable of significantly reducing the crime and anti-social behaviour risks during the evening and night-time hours, if the gates are secured.”
Other supportive comments – there were 34 in all – said that the plans were in keeping with the historic listed buildings and would protect the area’s heritage.
The Planning Committee is due to meet at 2pm at Hove Town Hall next Wednesday (8 May). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
It is worth reading the research about the real rather than the perceived effects of increased lighting on crime. In a nutshell, adding light makes no difference, but lights which come on and off, for example controlled by motion detectors or simply on timers actually do have a useful effect. A community friendly and wildlife approach to crime reduction, is entirely possible, without turning our city into a prison camp. The point is you can make these spaces feel less inactive, and more loved.
As long as the gates and fencing are of an appropriate design I see no problem. They will only be closed at night for security reasons. This is just common sense, especially if £4.5m is being spent. The danger is the money will be withdrawn. Incidentally I see Waterhall is being closed off this weekend, and I’m not going to mention Preston Park again in the month of August.
As long as the gates and fencing are of an appropriate design I see no problem. They will only be closed at night for security reasons. This is just common sense, especially if £4.5m is being spent. The danger is the money will be withdrawn. Incidentally I see Waterhall is being closed off this weekend, and I’m not going to mention Preston Park again in the month of August. The usual comments by the Brighton Society are rubbish, nobody will think what they are saying.
I have lived in Brighton on and off since 1957. The Pavilion gardens have always been open and they should remain open. The installation of gates and fencing would only encourage people to climb over and get up to mischief in the knowledge that they are unlikely to be interrupted.
I would rather potholes were filled, kerbs de-weeded and wept and cycle lanes improved and the bins got emptied to be quite honest..
Not sexy CV building material just business as usual. No point in having a gated tidy zone in a sea of crap.
The vast majority of the finding is coming from the lottery which can’t be used for any other purpose.
Sounds a bit like VG3! The vast majority of funding comes from a grant…..and the local taxpayer still gets shafted to the tune of £6m +
This is lottery money which cant be spent on providing council services
I walked through the gardens on a warm evening last week and thought how lovely it was that they were open.
Council leader Bella Sankey previously pledged that the grounds would remain open 24/7 to maintain the historical access and right of way enjoyed by generations of Brightonians.
This plan however contradicts that and 7ft fencing/railings all round will make it look like a prison or Stalag
. First steps to privatising a free city resource and recreation site. Likely to be closed off fo lucrative private events, not for use of the people.
A concern for many of us is that this has little to do with public safety and much more to do with making it easier for the Trust to close off the gardens so they can be hired out for private events. That’s been the Trust’s aim for years.
agree, a concern shared by many
Here they go again. Trying to exclude the public from public property. They seem to try this every few years.
They want to use the gardens for corporate events and weddings etc. Since the Trust has taken over the management of the site they have tried to monetise everything.
They have used distorted public safety statistics to try to paint the area as a hotbed of crime. They have recently tried to say that they cannot restore the gardens if the public has access.
The whole pavilion estate belongs to the public, it should continue to be accessible by the public not for the privileged few.
Agree
Exactly. BHCC do not own The Pavilion. It was purchased on behalf of the people of the Borough of Brighthelmston shortly after Queen Victoria made her last visit. Therefore BHCC do not own it but run it on behalf of the people of Brighton. It’s like when BHCC tried to sell Hove Library; they do not own it. The fences are a ridiculous idea.
The Police need to clamp down on crime so that law abiding citizens can enjoy the gardens; ditto Brighthelm Gardens: Fence them off rather than tackle the problem. Do not bother contacting local councillors, Katy Bourne or chief of Police as any letters or emails will be ignored.
The Pavilion es
state is now run by a private trust,RPMT, not the council. But the principle remains the same – they do NOT own the gardens, the people of Brighton do and gating, closing and high fencing it is depriving the people of their rights to walk through this historic and unique enclave and gardens when they wish..
Agree. Once again it is the Council trying to make money.
You have the chance today to vote them out. Equally, there should be a residents’ panel on the trust to voice the concerns of Brightonians.
No you don’t. There’s only by elections for a place in 2 wards today.
Ohhh lets guess … Next year or the one after we’ll have to pay to walk through the gardens…
Fix Madeira Drive!
Restoration starts this year
Adding gates in an apparent attempt to combat sexual assaults in the area, yet changing the toilets to unisex – something which are a danger to women…
very true.
Where can we complain?
I am glad to see that somebody has remarked above that this smacks of Labour twice attempting to flog off Hove’s Carnegie Library when in fact this does not belong to the Council which should be acting on behalf of the true owners, that is the residents. We now see cllr Robins trying to do the same again with the King Alfred. That man should be stopped forthwith!
Agree.
Labour’s election this time last year is looking increasingly like it was ‘vote first, and we will answer questions afterwards’.
I remember revising for my gcse’s there in the old days. Now its full of druggies and tramps. No thanks
Terrorists generally attack what they consider a worth while target. This rarely includes largely empty gsrdens at night. However, ‘terrorism’ is now the preferred threat to justify often authoritarian, or merely pointless and unpleasant, policies by bureaucrats unable to make more rational or reasoned arguments.
Viewing the Royal Pavilion through iron bars sends completely the wrong message to residents and visitors.
It is a community space and not the private property of the the Trust or the Council.
Am I wrong in thinking the “estate’s historic appearance” was there to keep the riff-raff out? So, people’s concerns are quite rightly confirmed with that rationale, I would think, no?
Brighton Museums: an “average” human is not 6ft tall (or indeed nearly 7ft) as in your misleading graphics. That is on the tall side by all accounts. Average height of a woman is 5ft 3 and a man 5ft 9, meaning aggregate for the sexes is approx 5ft 7, as NLCA show.