Councillors turned down £11 million plans to build a five-storey block of flats and three storeys of business premises in place of a couple of old warehouses in Hove.
Martin Homes was refused planning permission to demolish the existing buildings at Saxon Works, behind 303-305 Portland Road, Hove, and replace them two new taller buildings.
Members said that the proposed buildings, which included 26 flats, were too big and they cited potential transport problems, overlooking and a lack of “affordable” housing.
Martin Homes also owns the neighbouring Martello Lofts, where some residents have complained about unfinished work.
The company, owned by David Martin, 59, was previously refused permission to demolish six semi-detached houses at 295-305 Portland Road, Hove, in October 2020.
Labour councillor Bella Sankey, who represents Wish ward, addressed the Planning Committee and said that residents were concerned about a loss of privacy and a lack of affordable homes.
She also referred to Martello Lofts’ unfinished roof which has exposed some of the existing flats to damage.
Councillor Sankey said: “Residential new five-storey apartment building balconies and windows will be south facing and will directly overlook existing residents.
“The development site is already on an elevated piece of land which means it will be a very tall building for the surrounding area.”
She said that residents had told her that they could not afford to rent or buy locally.
But the cost of the proposed excavated underground car park would render the project unviable even if none of the flats were classed as “affordable”.
Neighbours in the Martello flats would lose nine of their 31 parking spaces, including two of the three disabled bays, she said, but were ineligible for resident permits.
Portland Road resident Stuart Duncan was among dozens of residents who objected to the scheme. He said that the commercial building due for demolition was right next to his home.
He said that the developer’s daylight report showed that his family’s kitchen window would have a 57 per cent reduction in visible sky.
Mr Duncan said: “Six out of eight north-facing windows will see a substantial drop below recommended light values.
“We, like most families, spend the majority of our time in our kitchen and dining room and have a right to sufficient light.”
Mr Duncan said that people who bought flats in Martello Lofts would lose their parking places because these were within the footprint of the new buildings.
Martin Homes’ agent Guy Dixon, from Savills, said that the balconies were positioned to reduce overlooking – and the proposed size of the building had been reduced after consultation.
Mr Dixon said: “The mixed-use scheme reprovides employment floor space on site through the delivery of a high-quality commercial building to the front.
“This will help bring vitality to the Portland Road street scene while increasing the number of jobs available on site compared to the existing industrial premises.”
Labour councillor Clare Moonan voted against the scheme and criticised the size of the building, the prospective overlooking and the visitor parking for the commercial building,
She said: “Mostly, this is just overdevelopment. It’s too big for this site. The fact they’ve done basement car parking has pushed the viability. I mean, it’s not even viable.
“You do have nightmares it’ll never get built. Something much more proportionate should have come forward.”
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald backed Councillor Moonan. She said that the proposed building was higher than any other building in the area, adding that the plans should have included affordable housing.
Councillor Theobald said: “It really annoys me there’s no affordable units and no commuted sum. We’re very unlikely to get anything there at all.
“It’s such a shame the developers are always paying too much for the land and cannot afford to do any affordable.”
Green councillor Marianna Ebel agreed that it was annoying that there was no affordable housing but added that the scheme complied with council policy.
She said: “If we turn this down, it is likely it would go to appeal and would be allowed on appeal.
“There is not enough to reject it. We can’t use the affordability as a reason for refusal because the ‘viability assessment’ backs the developer.”
