Plans for the second phase of a co-living village of hundreds of flats off Vogue Gyratory have been approved on appeal.
Kosy Co-living and Cross Stone Securities’ plans for 269 flats on the site of the Enterprise Point offices were turned down by councillors last March.
But this month, planning inspector Rekha Sabu said that although some of the blocks would overlook Viaduct Lofts and block out light, the need for housing meant that on balance the scheme should be approved.
Ms Sabu said there is a significant shortfall in the number of homes Brighton and Hove City Council has demonstrated the city has capacity to build.
She said: “The proposed development would deliver 269 co-living studios, equating to a contribution of 149 housing units using the Housing Delivery Test ratio of 1.8 units to one dwelling.
“In addition, there would be economic benefits during the construction phase and future occupiers would contribute to local services and facilities.
“Accordingly, while I note the evidence regarding the need for one bedroom dwellings, given the substantial number of units proposed, and the shortfall of housing supply, I attribute significant weight to this benefit.”
She also said that a contribution of £2.5 million the developers would have to pay to the council in lieu of providing affordable housing was a significant benefit.
She added: “The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and result in adverse effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to light and privacy. Therefore, the scheme would conflict with the development plan as a whole.
“Given the limited and localised nature of the harm to the character and appearance of the area, I attribute limited weight to the conflict with CPP1 Policies CP12 and CP14 and CPP2 Policies DM18 and DM19. As the harm to the Living conditions of neighbouring occupiers would be moderate, I attribute moderate weight to the conflict with CPP2 Policy DM20.
“Given the significant weight attributed to the benefits of the scheme, the adverse effects would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.”
After the refusal in March, the developers submittted plans for a revised version of the scheme, with just 221 flats. This has not yet been decided.
A first phase on the site of former garages in Melbourne Street has already been approved and plans for a third, on the site of Machine Mart fronting Lewes Road, have not yet been submitted.
Brilliant news! We desperately need more housing of all forms. So happy this has been approved.
This is NOT Housing!
These units are not flats they are bedsits/studio flats with pulldown beds.
The accommodation is not being built for families, no one under 18 is allowed to live there. The rooms are to be rented out at £1400 a month. You cannot purchase one of these bedsits, rental only £££!
(Check the websites of the contractor if you need to! Yes £1400 a month!) They have another build like this in Sheffield and Guildford.
2.5 million given by the contractor to the council is a drop in the ocean for affordable housing. The contractor is not obliged to pay anything to social housing because of the type of build (ko living space), if this build was for families the contractor would owe £28million to the local social housing fund. Considering there are two schools about to close in Brighton it’s sad to see that these builders got away with A) not building family housing and B) not paying the correct amount for affordable houses.
This explains why Brighton has seen so many of these types of builds pop up of late, building family housing is not as profitable.
At what cost to the city and its people though! It’s all very sad.
the previous council’s planning policy has already completely blighted this area and turned it into a soul-less, student wasteland…. this is just another dire scheme on top of all that… the people that are elected to run Brighton are not fit for purpose… end of… massive electoral reform is needed to stop these clueless idiotsbeing allowed to make really important decisions that destroy whole communities and turn them into student wastelands
“Student wasteland” surely is an oxymoron. Considering so many businesses (let alone two large universities) rely on them.
Feels like you just don’t like students despite their significant contribution to the local economy. Whilst sensible people agree that HMOs for example need limiting, to characterise the area as a wasteland is laughable.
And by the way…whilst they may have hidden
intentions, the current plans are for professional flats, not student flats.
are you one of the morons who support this -non-interested, transient students that move every year or two that support the numerous junk food outlets in this area, literally every other house let to students.
This development is not providing proper homes for families but disguised as being for professional working people – utter drivel… these units are/will be let out to students for maximum profit.
I grew up in this area and it’s slowly and continually had the complete heart and soul ripped out of it
So true
The council are destroying the place I am from!
The council rejected it. This was overruled by central government, so blame the Tories for this.
Brighton Council actually recommended this project for approval, then it was turned down by a struggling Green Party who were trying to cling onto as many votes as possible, this was corrupt. They refused to listen to their own planning officers! The Planning Inspectorate chose to side with Brighton Council’s original recommendation for approval. This is the fact in regards to this application at Enterprise Point, check the planning prtal for confirmation, it is all there in black and white.
Well said Tom, I feel the same way about Sarah’s emotive, but ultimately fallacious comment here. It also lacks understanding of planning, as this wasn’t a council decision.
Sarah would do well to remove her bigotry towards students by improving her knowledge so she could make a reasonable argument in the future. Exaggeration is a tool of those who struggle to articulate themselves. I hope she does better.
The Council REJECTED the application but was overruled by the planning inspector (part of the government)
Absolutely spot on Chris, the council have very limited powers when it comes to objecting planning permissions. It’s a very important point to highlight.
I know! The council have really destroyed Moulscoomb’s previous reputation for… *checks notes*
Living in this area tbh the whole stretch of Lewes road from elm grove to Sainsbury’s should be demolished and started again. Zero merit in what’s currently there, bungeroosh railway houses rotting with mold. Most of which are let to students anyway. This road should all be minimum 5 stories high.
I so agree with this! Having lived in lewes road area all my life, I think the street could be so much better without those awful old Victorian two stories. They’re tired, unloved and falling apart, but it’s almost blasphemous to speak about compulsory purchase in the uk, let alone the idea of knocking down 100 year old buildings. Denser living will help businesses and improve the look of the area
Dave,
Let’s not stop there; lets knock down every house of two stories or less in the whole town – why confine it to Lewes Road. There are many houses in Withdean, Rottingdean, Surrenden etc that meet your criteria or is just poorer people that you wish to subject to your dystopian, Le Corbusier, Neo-brutalist nightmare.
It’s not mentioning the £1500 a month price tag for a small room with shared facilities. ( Bill included )
Who can afford that??Brighton need’s affordable housing for first time buyers. Sadly greed wins again.
I used to work at Enterprise Point. The Building was old but I’ve seen overs similar being given a refub, I have had a lot of property guardians who were made homeless as a result of this development, so whilst it will be new homes, will these be for local people? also will local workers build it as its just not being the case so many out of area workers come here. Whole system is broken. A lot of people worked in this area, assume these jobs wont be replaced also…
You support Cllr. Williams Principal Residency Clause then on new builds then, most certainly, right? That’s how we ensure local people have access to new homes.
What does the future of housing look like now this has been approved? These UNITS (not homes) do not even meet the national standard for size and will be £1700 a month. These ‘Villas’ provide NO housing for what Brighton so desperately needs. REAL HOMES for families or vulnerable people is what Brighton needs, not this. Co-Living is aimed at young professionals who would need to earn over 50k a year to be able to afford to live here. YES Brighton needs more housing but not ones that exploit the housing crisis (charging £1700 a month for a room with a pull down bed). Kosy Living claims it will ‘enhance lifestyles’…. the only thing I can see enhanced is the skyline with ugly skyscrapers and the back pockets of these soulless developers!!!
Two more questions for Dave and Tom –
1) Where are you going to put the literally thousands of people your ideas would make homeless? Previously Dave advocated also destroying the Saunders Park and Bates Estates homes as well and all these people would need somewhere to live or are you happy to make them homeless.
2) Who is going to build the awful, soulless eastern European style blocks you’re advocating? The contactors couldn’t even manage to build the parts of the Preston Barracks development that were allegedly for non-students
What an absolutely disgusting decision. What is the point of public consultation if they just ignore it anyway?The existing houses will be unliveable whilst building takes place and once completed they’ll totally block out the gardens.
This isn’t housing for people in need, it’s a block of very expensive flats for rich Londoners bachelor pads.
There’s also no infrastructure for this many people to move into the area. Where are they all parking?
There’s a Tory peer making a mint from this and as always it’s screw the rest of us.
Totally agree Dan. The developer behind this PAUL BRUNDELL won an award for this before it had even been approved. CORRUPT MUCH?
The whole system is corrupt.
Just another millionaire developer exploiting the housing crisis and making it worse, all under the guise that its IMPROVING the situation.
Real local people who represent the community can see this for exactly what it is!!
Disgusting this has happened and shame on BHCC for not fighting against it properly…
She seems very keen on the idea – what a lovely positive attitude. I wonder what beautiful idealistic principle is motivating her ❤️👍
Odd method of appointing planning inspectors. Yes, they do technically get appointed by the Sec of State of the government of the day, but I doubt that the appointments are actually ‘political’ and some of these inspectors may have been around for donkey’s years since a previous politically – coloured government The Inspectorate seems to recruit as and wherever it can and the inspector swoops in all over the place where it has no local knowledge. Inevitably, where there is a very large subjective element (i.e. where the issue seems to depend almost entirely on attaching ‘subjective weight’ to various policies rather than anything else, as in this case), then the inspector is being subjective and imposes their own opinion. Not a great system in anyone’s book, but we seem to be stuck with it.
Whatever one thinks about this particular development, the