Councillors are due to hold a special meeting to decide whether controversial plans for 495 homes on a former gasworks site can go ahead.
More than 1,700 objections have been lodged since Berkeley Homes subsidiary St William submitted plans to redevelop the former Brighton Gasworks.
Brighton and Hove City Council has received 58 comments in support of the scheme.
The council has called a special meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday 22 May when members will decide whether to grant planning permission for the scheme.
St William has proposed putting up a number of blocks up to 12 storeys high, with 495 homes, including 14 townhouses.
A grant from Homes England, a government agency, would ensure that 40 per cent of the homes would be classed as “affordable”. Of these, 115 would be for rent and the remaining 111 in shared ownership.
The scheme includes some “non-residential” space, car parking and cycle parking as well as private and community space.
Berkeley Homes applied to redevelop the Brighton gasworks site, bordered by the B2066 Roedean Road, Marina Way and Boundary Road, in November 2021.
The plans sparked the Action on Gasworks Housing Safety, Affordability and Transparency (Aghast) campaign by residents concerned about contamination and toxic chemicals released from the site during the building process.
Aghast member Stephen White said: “We believe this is a vast overdevelopment for this small, contaminated site.
“Most local residents are extremely concerned about the threat to their health that it poses because when you dig this whole contamination up it goes out into the air, gases escape. You can’t stop them.
“We know from all the experiences from other people of similar gasworks sites that have been developed that there have been major problems with their health, streaming eyes and noses, breathing difficulties, nausea, vomiting even. It’s really not a pleasant thing.
“This is going to go on for 10 years.”
Mr White said that the effect on the listed buildings on the east Brighton seafront, including Sussex Square, was a concern.
Aghast has organised a rally against the plans for Thursday 9 May.
Labour councillor Gill Williams, who represents Whitehawk and Marina ward, has opposed the application alongside her ward colleague and fellow Labour councillor David McGregor.
Councillor Williams, the council’s cabinet member for housing and new homes, said: “We have a huge housing crisis and a lack of affordability.
“This is one of the most expensive cities in the country and the last thing we need is an expensive development that none of our local people can afford to live in.
“I’ve no objection to developments but they must be the right sort of developments and I don’t believe this one is.
“I believe luxury is £700,000 or something like that. They were very frank in a meeting a couple of years ago that they are looking at the investment market so we may well get a block of flats that no one lives in.”
The affordable homes element was introduced in November 2023, subject to Homes England funding.
Objections to the current application have also come in from various community and conservation groups including Brighton and Hove Heritage Commission, Regency Squares Community, Kemp Town Society, the Brighton Society and the Kingscliff Society.
St William said: “Our proposals for this brownfield former gasworks site would deliver 495 energy-efficient and high-quality homes in a sustainable location within the city, along with new public open space, pedestrian and cycle routes and a mix of commercial space which would support up to 195 permanent jobs and generate significant economic benefits.
“We believe that bringing well-connected brownfield sites back into use is the most sustainable way to meet housing needs and reduces pressure to build out into the countryside.”
Aghast’s protest is due to start at 6pm on Thursday 9 May in Roedean Road opposite the gasworks site.
The special Planning Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 2pm on Wednesday 22 May. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s
Thank goodness with the Tories on their way out we can finally get some homes built. These people have been making homes unaffordable for so many years that entire generations are now locked out of owning their own home and simply wouldn’t be able to get a mortgage now anyway so late in their working life.
Goodness knows how the state is going to support them in retirement, they won’t have anywhere to live.
These wretched NIMBYS have made themselves the enemy of entire swathes of the population by throttling housing supply and causing prices and now rents to go to ludicrous levels.
Something has to break, the answer will probably be to start means testing pensions so that those who have alternate incomes over 15k start getting their pension benefits reduced in order to pay for housing benefit these people are directly responsable for.
I wouldn’t call this NIMBYism though Mark. Their concerns on people’s health are legitimate, well articulated and documented.
If that wasn’t a factor, you’d have a better foundation to make that claim, but unfortunately this is not the case.
I’m sure you agree that homes are for living in, but when they are not affordable, by any metric, they aren’t lived in, can you truly argue they are homes? One can simply look at the Marina for a real example of people’s concerns made manifest.
From the article these objectors seem to have some properly founded concerns over how the contaminate land is dealt with.
Whether that’s a proper planning ground to refuse the application I’m not sure but the applicants can likely provide amelioration to ease those concerns.
If they were just NIMBYS they’d be complaining about it affecting their house prices, parking and construction noise (none of which are planning grounds)
Speaking of amelioration, there was a suggestion of reducing the height of the development, so the foundation would not have to be so deep, and this would mitigate the chances of disturbing toxins underneath. But from what I heard, this was rejected as it made the development financially unviable.