Controversial plans to build hundreds of homes on a former gasworks site are recommended for approval when they go before councillors next week.
It has taken two and a half years to bring the application by Berkeley Homes subsidiary St William before Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee.
St William wants to build 11 blocks up to 12 storeys high, with 481 flats alongside 14 three-storey townhouses, making a total of 495 homes.
The planning application includes 2,791 square metres of commercial floor space at ground floor level and a “green link” between Roedean Road and Marina Way.
A report to councillors recommended that they grant the application subject to conditions including developer payments known as a section 106 agreement.
The conditions are expected to include 40 per cent of the housing to be affordable and for St William to enter a contract with a “registered provider”, typically a housing association.
Other elements of the agreement include improvement works to Boundary Road to the west of the site, including a “toucan crossing” in Marine Drive and improvements to Roedean Road and Marina Way.
Hundreds of residents and 23 community groups and conservation societies have sent the council more than 1,700 objections to the plans. Some 58 comments have been submitted in support of the scheme.
Labour councillor Gill Williams, who represents Whitehawk and Marine ward, is among the objectors – as is Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Bridget Fishleigh, who represents Rottingdean and West Saltdean.
Other objectors include Lloyd Russell Moyle, the Labour MP, and former councillors Mary Mears, Joe Miller and Nancy Platts.
Scores of people gathered at the site on Thursday (9 May) to protest against the scheme including Councillors Williams and Fishleigh and the Labour councillors for Kemptown, Theresa Mackey and Gary Wilkinson.
Councillor Wilkinson said that he was not against the principle of developing the site but understood neighbours’ concerns about the height and density of the plans.
He said: “Having previously lived close to the gasworks site, I know that is completely out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area.
“Not every site can contain a high-rise dense development and it will not deliver the truly affordable housing that local people need.
“It fails to deliver adequate parking and does not provide any community uses. Importantly, it also raises serious concerns in respect of land contamination and remediation.”
One objector, Caroline O’Reilly, who is in her late 70s and has lived in Arundel Street with her husband Edmund for nearly 25 years, has followed the proposals from the start and said that she was horrified.
She said: “I can acknowledge that you need to use land for housing but the more we’ve found out about this, the more we realised there wasn’t going to be any really affordable housing.
“What really worries me is the contamination. There are other places they (St William) have been involved with like Southall where people have been ill. We don’t want to end our days choking.”
Becci East has lived in nearby Cliff Road to the east of the site for 12 years. She is concerned that contamination could affect her nine-year-old son and that, in the future, he would not be able to afford to live in the area.
She said: “I feel frightened about what might be imposed on our community. I feel more strongly than ever that this development is wrong.
“I’ve spent the last four years learning about planning, contamination, affordable housing and truly affordable housing and the history of the gasworks site.
“It feels like Berkeley has tried to grind the community down by submitting multiple applications and we’ve had to campaign to get the objections – and finally a decision is going to have to happen.”
But any potential contamination would be “limited”, according to the Environment Agency which has not objected to the plans.
The agency said: “If any visual or olfactory evidence of unexpected contamination is encountered, in any area proposed for infiltration drainage, then this must be diligently investigated.
“If there is a risk of mobilisation of any contamination, then we would require that this contamination is chased out.
“Any work associated with this must be done in liaison with the Environment Agency.”
The flats include 26 studios (5 per cent of the homes), 142 one beds (29 per cent), 265 with two bedrooms (54 per cent) and 48 with three bedrooms (10 per cent). The 14 townhouses would all have three or four bedrooms.
The application includes 179 “podium” car parking spaces, 532 long-stay residential cycle spaces, 24 long-stay commercial cycle spaces, 86 short-stay cycle spaces and 30 motorcycle spaces.
St William has agreed to use “reasonable endeavours” to provide policy-compliant affordable housing, with a “registered provider” buying 40 per cent of the homes using Homes England funding.
This would work out as 198 homes, with 55 per cent of those to be let for an “affordable” rent – usually 80 per cent of the local market rate – and 45 per cent in shared ownership.
The breakdown for affordable homes would be
- One bedroom 77 (39 per cent)
- Two bedroom 107 (54 per cent)
- Three bedroom 14 (7 per cent)
The Planning Committee is due to hold an extra meeting to decide the application at Hove Town Hall at 2pm next Wednesday (22 May). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
They are a load of utterly selfish middle class nimbys! It’s an eyesore, a brownfield, disused gasworks and is ideal for redevelopment – and Brighton desperately needs housing! Gasworks have been very successfully redeveloped with blocks of a similar size in Kings Cross, Kennington, Nine Elms, Battersea, Stratford and so on – why not in Brighton? Because if might block the view for a few entitled nimbys! If this doesn’t go ahead then the developer will take their investment and just go elsewhere sure will and Brighton will be left with a polluted eyesore for ever ..
yes typical nimbys, they prefer nothing above progress, too many living in days long gone when the local population was topped up by Victorian weekenders they could scam, and anyone else.
‘Eyesore’? Have you seen the artists’ impression of the development?
How this development is supposed to be an improvement on the gasometer and open land, it is hard to tell.
None of these flats are intended to help locals in housing need.
Meanwhile the existing locals have to contend with years of noise and toxic dust, risking serious illnesses, for an ugly overdevelopment which will probably mostly end up in the hands of investors and holiday home landlords. In London developers are not even bothering to advertise most new blocks in this country any more, but off-plan to the far east as investment properties, many never lived in. They are just gold bars in the sky investmentwise.
You sound like one of the local nimbys who already have a house and have made significant equity from increasing house prices and doesn’t want their view compromised! Have you seen the developments in King’s Cross, Kennington and Nine Elms? They have transformed gas works which were polluted eyesores into vibrant communities and have provided thousands of homes – I lived in Nine Elms for a short while and no it’s not empty and it’s not filled with holiday homes!! This development will provide 500 homes and not for far east investors to leave empty but mostly for rent and for locals – all your nonsense about pollution is just a diversion because you selfish nimbys just don’t want to lose your views .. just remember if there were people like you moaning when your own house was being planned and built maybe you wouldn’t have a house either
I totally agree, their doing a development in Bethnal green at the moment, being well built to be fair, they should remember that their house being built would have annoyed somebody at that era,it’s progress,and if people can afford them it means society is kinda doing alright, the council does need to start building houses instead of paying rents, that is dead money, I hope they get the go.
Not Nimbys.
If you were properly researched, you’d know:
1.The developer will pay to get out of any so-called ‘affordable’ housing.
80 % of current rmarket rent is not affordable for locals.
2.These will be high-end , luxury flats, marketed abroad as the developer admitted in the early discussions.
3.The Gasworks developments you refer to were not by this developer.
4.Residents close to Gasworks by the same developer in Southall, Mitcham, Hornsey & Oval suffered serious health issues for years, like streaming noses & eyes, respiratory problems, headaches, nausea & vomiting.
Who knows what the long-term health effects of lengthy exposure to carcinogenic naphthalene & benzene are.
5.Leap Environmental for the Council in the Consultee Ground Conditions Document talks of leaving piles of dug-up soil on site, effectively an outdoor soil hospital of contamination!
How many bikes??
532
Do these objectors ever visit the 02 at Greenwich. It was built on the biggest Gas works in the South East, do they consider the contamination and the number of homes built there, I think they probably chose to ignore it.
That’s a bit of selective omission, Bryan. The construction of the O2 Arena (formerly known as the Millennium Dome) in London faced several contamination issues, primarily related to the site’s previous industrial use. The area where the O2 now stands was formerly home to gasworks, which left behind soil contaminated with various pollutants, including heavy metals and hydrocarbons. This contamination posed environmental and health risks, requiring extensive remediation efforts before construction could proceed.
To address these issues, significant remediation work was undertaken to clean up the site. This involved techniques such as soil washing, bioremediation, and soil capping to remove or neutralize contaminants. Additionally, measures were implemented to prevent the spread of contaminants during construction and ensure the safety of workers and future occupants of the site.
Not by the same developer.
Residents living by gasworks redevelopment by this developer in Southall, Mitchum, Hornsey & Oval suffered for years from serious health issues, such as streaming eyes & noses, respiratory problems, headaches, nausea & vomiting.
No one knows the long-term health effects of exposure to dust, fumes & water from the release of carcinogenic coaltar toxins, like napthalene & benzene.
Not to mention the asbestos, arsenic & cyanide.
No-one can object to development of Brownfield sites much better than developing on Greenbelt. However the density and size of this proposed development is totally out of keeping with the environment and will not assist with improving the quality of life and infrastructure in the area. It would be interesting to know whether they can be a covenant which stops say 20% of these apartments been used for holiday homes. I suspect that the developer will then not be so keen to continue. These proposals will be yet another carbunkle on the coastline very similar to the dreadful flats built on the marina , which are substantially second homes. Come on Lloyd you must stop this development in its tracks and seek something much more in keeping with the area which enhances not subtracts from our general environment and well-being.
if by ‘Lloyd’ you mean the MP then he has absolutly no powers to stop or deny any planning application which are dealt with by Councillors.
I can’t understand this, what’s there now is a complete eyesore! Already a tall building in place there (Marine Gate) so precedent is already set.
The height argument isn’t really the main issue here, fortunately. There’s quite a few reasons for the objections, including disturbing deep-ground contaminants, and the effect it will have on people’s respiratory health, as one example out of many.
The main concern for me is the healthcare issues of underground contaminants that have been historically released from other sites; I feel sorry for the council and the residents on this one, there is a clear will that this is the wrong way to develop this site, yet unfortunately the appeals process, once again, sidesteps.
Looking forward to major wastes associated with former gasworks sites including tars, oils, hydrocarbon sludges, spent oxide wastes, ash and ammoniacal recovery wastes. /s
And that is addrrssed in the planning officers report – available in the committee papers for next week’s meetings.
The actual gas making part of the site is restricted on one part of the site whereaas the contamination is not as bad in other parts – including where the (old) gasometers are
Er, no, Chris Swain’s recommendation & the consultee documents whitewash the full extent of the contamination problem & allows the develper to skirt the 40% affordable housing obligation.
Residents living near gasworks redevelopments by this developer in Southall, Mitchum, Hornsey & Oval suffered for years from serious health issues, such as streaming eyes & noses, respiratory problems, headaches, nausea & vomiting.
No one knows the long-term health effects of exposure to dust, fumes & water from the release of carcinogenic coaltar toxins, like napthalene & benzene.
Not to mention the asbestos, arsenic & cyanide.
“Affordable” – 80% of the local market rate. Taking the average house cost in Brighton, and the current fix-rate mortgage over a 30-year repayment, you would need to be paying about £2,391 a month to afford this. The best ratio of rent to wage is typically considered to be around 30% of your salary, so that means you would need to be earning £7,970 a month. Or £95,640 a year.
The basic annual salary of an MP in the House of Commons is £91,346, as of April 2024.
Brighton & Hove will be like Croydon very soon. A mass of high rise ugly buildings. Time to move!
Oh please!!
We need the publishing of the NIMBYs details so we know who the antisocial runts living our midsts are
And it’s comments like yours than make such redactions necessary.
Coming from the most bias commenter on this topic, his vindictive sleaze only serves to prove his own comment incorrect.
One again more inappropriate high rises being squashed into a very small space!
An over development that lines the pockets of the rich with zero support for those in need or the community!
We need more affordable housing and this is NOT it.
It will only make the housing crisis worse.
This will ruin the beautiful historical seafront in this city!
Hopefully it gets refused and doesn’t go to the Government Housing Inspectorate on appeal!
If the council does refuse it then the developer will take it to appeal and will more than likely win.
It’s no higher and arguably much more attractive than marine gate .. maybe you would have complained about when it was being built ! And the reason housing is so expensive in Brighton is because of NIMBYs like you complaining about everything that is proposed to be built .. nothing being built means lack of supply which means higher prices .. it’s very simple
Too simple unfortunately.Very few Brightonians will be able to afford these flats, so the effect is to create more demand from affluent outsiders. The only kind of housing that will truly affect supply is old style council (assuming of course Right to Buy is stopped). Otherwise it’s housing for the rich, second /third homes, holiday lets and more private landlordism where rents inevitably go up and up, because there is nothing to stop them.
I really want to see movement on the Primary Residency Clause legalisation as an actual remedy.