Campaigners shed tears of joy as a controversial plan to build hundreds of homes on the former Brighton gasworks site was turned down by councillors this evening (Wednesday 22 May).
The developer St William spent three years on its plans for 495 homes, including 11 blocks of flats up to 12 storeys high, on the former gasworks site in Marina Way.
The planning application included 2,791 square metres of commercial floor space at ground floor level and a “green link” between Marina Way and Roedean Road.
The fate of the £280 million scheme was decided at the end of a six-and-a-half-hour meeting of Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee at Hove Town Hall.
The meeting was told that more than 1,700 objections to the scheme had been sent to the council from neighbours to national heritage organisations.
But planning manager Jane Mostyn said that the decision-making process was “not a referendum” on the 481 flats and 14 townhouses.
Officials had advised councillors to grant planning permission subject to conditions and with a request that “reasonable endeavours” to provide affordable housing be made by St William, part of the Berkeley Group, a £5 billion housebuilding business.
The committee voted seven to three against the scheme because, among other reasons, it would be too big and cramped, would harm the area’s historic heritage and contained too few family homes.
Questions about “affordable homes” dominated the meeting, with councillors concerned about an “airy fairy” proposal to sell 40 per cent of the homes sold to Sovereign Housing Association.
This would improve the chance of vital funding from Homes England but, councillors were told, a legally binding agreement was not possible.
The viability of the scheme was poor and the developer could make just £9 million profit, rather than their typical target of more than £50 million.
Affordable housing was raised by resident representatives Marie Sandsford, Stephen White and Beccy East for the campaign group AGHAST (Action on Gasworks Housing Affordability, Safety and Transparency) when they addressed the Planning Committee.
Mrs East said: “We urge you to be brave today and stand up to a developer with deep pockets who cares about is shareholders and not the needs of our city.”
Labour councillor Gill Williams, who represents Whitehawk and Marina ward, criticised the plans and voiced concerns about affordable housing.
As the council’s cabinet member for housing and new homes, she was acutely aware of the need for more housing but banged the table as she railed against the scheme.
To cheers from the public gallery, Councillor Williams said: “This will turn Kemp Town into Gotham City … It’s not in keeping with our heritage and conservation areas at all.
“We cannot accept ‘reasonable endeavours’ for affordable housing. Tell this developer to go back to the drawing board, to try harder and do better. We should only accept safe and genuinely affordable homes in our city.”
St William’s land and development director Ashley Spearing said that the affordable housing contribution had to rely on “reasonable endeavours” to secure it to satisfy the coditions of a prospective grant from Homes England.
When concerns were raised about short-term holiday lets, Mr Spearing told councillors that anyone buying a 999-year lease would be barred from using their home as an “Airbnb”.
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald said that the five-acre (two-hectare) site was scruffy and needed developing.
She said: “There’s some good things about the application, including the underground car parking. I do like the circus and the lovely green round building.
“But I do think the excessive height of the proposed scheme is outside the tall building zone and will be highly prominent, especially from the South Downs and the seafront.”
Labour councillor Maureen Winder said that it was an opportunity missed, adding: “It doesn’t relate to people’s needs in a human way and building a community, where it’s integrated with what’s going on around there. It feels exclusive and this will be too expensive for a lot of people.”
Labour councillor Liz Loughran, who chairs the Planning Committee, was concerned about light, over-development and the lack of family homes big enough to suit people working from home.
Councillor Loughran said: “Some of the blocks are too high, aggravating the density issues. There has been a failure to get the public on board during the consultation process. The process was not carried out to a satisfactory conclusion.”
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey was torn and said that he was not happy with the science and expertise on decontamination, saying: “I don’t think it meets the housing needs of the city.
“We need more three-bedroom properties and I can’t see our residents being able to afford to live here.”
Labour councillor Jacob Allen said that he welcomed the idea of the round building retaining the view for people travelling down Wilson Avenue.
He said: “We are not rich in strategic, sustainable brownfield sites. Counties in the ‘green belt’ would be salivating over sites like this and seeing cranes going up as soon as possible.”
Green councillor Sue Shanks was pleased to see affordable housing that looked like it would happen when it looked like nothing.
She said: “I hope we get to a state where the council could build more social housing on sites like this.
“I don’t think I could oppose building on a brownfield site to be honest as this is where we are today and it really needs developing. I am reassured about contamination.”
Labour councillors Jacob Allen and Alison Thompson and Green councillor Sue Shanks voted for the scheme.
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey, Conservative councillor Carol Theobald and Labour councillors Liz Loughran, Ty Galvin, Birgit Miller, Maureen Winder and Paul Nann voted against.
Some shameful stuff. Brighton needs homes.
Agreed, which is why this denial was the right thing to do. Brighton needs homes, not investment properties.
Investment homes are still homes. If there was political ambition at national level to end homes as investments then all you have succeeded in doing is reducing the supply that’s desperately needed.
Here is the kicker James: There isn’t a “political ambition at national level to end homes as investments”!! So until that is done we should only be entertaining house building for working UK citizens and families. It hurts me to see planning permission being denied, but in case it seems justified. Cannot let these rich investors walk all over us.
Hard disagree. The commodification of homes has had an evident effect on reducing the housing supply, particularly those within the lower rent brackets, James. Ovingdean not enough for you?
You can’t support blocking 500 homes whilst complaining about housing supply being reduced.
Good thing I’m not doing that then, James. I’m supporting blocking 500 unaffordable homes whilst complaining about social rent housing supply being reduced. Big difference there James.
Yes, I agree, but Brighton needs (affordable) homes!
Not about to be offered with this development.
To get affordable homes we need 10 years of building homes at a much faster rate. Anything else is a sticking plaster.
We build at a rate way below the EU average, and we don’t build with enough density to create the dynamic cities required for a successful country.
I’m not opposed to government led social housing and a government scheme to get land for this affordably but nothing, bar nothing we reduce overall prices unless we allow building to meet demand.
Supply must equal demand.
I’m certain the applicant will take this to appeal and will win – and without many of the conditions planning officers suggested.
Oh, they’ll definitely go to appeal. This may be a stay of execution, but a welcome one it seems.
Deafening silence from hopeless Kemptown councillors on this. It fell to Cllr Williams to voice concerns for Kemp town.
Councillors are only allowed a certain amount of time to speak at planning committees Alan and so Cllr Williams who’s ward the development sits in spoke, along with residents. This is logical.
Your Kemptown councillors opposed this development and have supported local residents and community groups in their opposition to it.
You do realise this is in Whitehawk right Alan? You know that Cllr. Williams is chair of housing and the same party as the Kemptown councillors, and clearly work together?
I know throwing generic shade at Labour is your favourite pastime, but do try to think it through in the future please.
This is right on the boundary. The large proportion of residents whose live could be affected live in Kemptown ward and is a huge issue here.
Selfish uncontrolled greedy boomerism.
You know that Cllr. Williams is chair of housing and the same party as the Kemptown councillors, and clearly work together?
I know throwing generic shade at Labour is your favourite pastime, but do try to think it through in the future please.
Pleased to see that common sense prevailed & that the majority of councillors voted against. The City is crying out for more houses not flats. There is a prevalence of flats around the corner at the marina. Shameful that the Kemp Town councillors stayed away. As for Jacob Taylor has he ever voted against a development?
It was Cllr Jacob Allen not Cllr Jacob Taylor in this Commitee.
I find the desperate disingenuous attacks far more shameful. Maybe you should play less politics, and stick to your talents, because evidently, you’re not particularly good at the former, Councillor.
Why are you being rude…??
Cllr Lyons is not arguing in good faith and lying to the public like this should be treated with the level of respect it deserves.
As Anon says. I’ve heard the Councillor speak and write before so I know he is capable of an articulate and cooperative spirit. What he’s demonstrated here is unwarranted vindictive behaviour, particularly since he knows full well the mechanisms of how the council operates.
He’s not stupid, and he isn’t naive. Comments such as these do him, his political party, and the constituents he serves a disservice. If the good councillor wants to mud-sling, he should expect to be called out for the disingenuousness of it.
Bong!
You said ‘disingenuous’.
I claim my five shillings
Why would Kemltown Councillors be at the meeting when the site is in Whitehawk and Marina Ward?
Because Kemptown ward residents are the immediate neighbours of this site.
See what Cllr Wilkinson wrote above.
Why is this common sense? By turning this down the site will be left as a polluted eyesore and the city will lose 400 new homes .. isn’t any wonder that Brighton has such a shortage of homes – pandering to selfish nimbys who already have homes but who might lose their view!
With the same logic you are using marine gate would never have been built!
I hope they appeal and I hope they get permission!
Spot on.
Don’t worry, a Westminster Labour government will push this through without any further need for NUMBYism becoming involved.
It’s a real shame, the whole area would be a whole lot better than having a very scruffy site with a gasometer to look at, a rough road and yellow buses and Lorrie’s jamming up Arundel street on a daly basis.
Crazy bad decision in my view.
I would imagine something will definitely happen to the site, It’s such an important site. The counsellors responsibility is to get it 100% Right. For me and many others, I believe they have got it right, this developing company need to try harder and do better, The people of Brighton need to benefit not the shareholders.
It’s not councillors on the committee responsibility to get it 100% right. That’s an impossibility.
You may believe that got it right in rejecting the scheme but it’s clear people disagree with you – including 3 councillors on the committee.
It’s their job to asses the application against the requirements of planning law and planning policy and nothing else.
A majority of the committee decided the application didn’t meet planning policy. It’s likely the applicant will take this to appeal and a planning inspector may decide to grant the application.
I would doubt it … it’s a very expensive site to develop, the developers have spent 3 long years with new plan after new plan pandering to selfish nimby locals who don’t want anything built because it might affect their views, or might cause a little disruption whilst it is being built – if they don’t win on appeal then £280 m and 400 desperately needed flats will simply leave Brighton and go to another area .. and at the end of the day that’s what these nimbys want and leave this eyesore as it is
I would argue the fatal flaw in your assertion there Andreas is that 400 desperately needed flats is not accurate. 400 target rent flats are desperately needed. Market rate flats price out most typical working families, which is the opposite of what you’re wanting.
Shut up Boomer, you’ve made life for my generation a misery.
You’re such a massive burden, the sooner your lot are gone, the better. It’s too late for millennials and gen Z, but at least we might be able to do something for their kids and undo this terrible malicious mess your generation has created.
You won’t be missed one bit, parties will be had.
Boomer? I’m way to young for that title I’m afraid, hahaha! I’m younger than you, Mark.
Obviously the brown paper envelopes weren’t sufficiently filled
Where is your evidence if you were vhdllenged in Court?
Cllr Jacob Taylor does not sit on the planning committee. If you had attended the committee like myself you would have seen this.
Cllr Gill Williams spoke in opposition as she represents the ward the development was in, Whitehawk and Marina.
Your Kemptown councillors have long opposed this overdevelopment and the impact it would have had on Kemptown.
Get your facts right Cllr Lyons.
The impact being less HMOs, more customers for local businesses, removal of a severely contaminated wasteland and a lot more people using the public transport. People got rid of the greens to stop stupid decisions being taken, yet again we are turning down housing getting built. King Alfred all over again…
There isn’t a shred of evidence that the land is contaminated. This is just a boomer fabrication to cause more malicious damage to the lives of the next generation.
Hmmm, I think actually we need 500 flats over 30 3 bedroom houses. Love the picture of the campaigners, some grey haired retired people who own their own homes NIMBYing it for the younger generation. Ironically this will go to appeal and probably be waved through wasting loads more council money and giving them less powers. The city desperately needs some buildings to go above 3 stories high if it’s ever going to come close to housing it’s workforce and make HMOs less likely in family homes. Bigger picture stuff I know lol but those councillors who voted this down did so to the detriment of the city. People moan about student flats in Lewes road, well here was 500 flats… Oh no to high, might spoil the view from the toilet window….
These folks are pretending there isn’t tower blocks there already. It’s the typical “I’ve got my home thanks very much but screw anyone else”.
Most of them live in the Marine Gate building.
1700 complaints about the development… from 200 households. Multiple complaints made at every stage of the consultation over and over again.
200 people wrecking 500 families.
They are cretinous antisocial runts and it’s about time we started means testing the state pension and putting these people through a work capability test.
Brighton was given city status, and has used it well so far.
We have major developments around Brighton Station Quarter, and now a high rise housing sector at the Goldstone area, and we keep developing. Just look at what has happened along London Road in recent years, and Lewes Road with all the modern high-rise university developments. It makes me feel that this is a prosperous modern city at last. Brighton is ambitious, and an old gasworks site on the edge of the main seafront would help tie in the Marina to the main hub of the city, and would help fix the dead area east of the pier. This is a totally appropriate development in a city that is centred around a younger generation. I’d happily live there.
These old people may want to live in post-war Britain overlooking an old gasworks, but they should do that in Scarborough or Rugby if that’s what they want.
This is Brighton, and we are moving on.
Take a look behind the atrocities of the Lewes Road high-rise development and you will see the hundreds of family homes that have been purchased by developers and converted into multi bedroom Student HMO’s. These are strictly reserved by the landlords for University students while prohibiting the long term residents of Brighton from letting these properties. It is the universities who decided who will live in these areas, what developments will take place and who will reap the benefits.
“We need low-cost social housing on this site, there’s not enough in the locale”
“What about all of Whitehawk that sits just behind this proposed redevelopment area?”
“That’s Whitehawk. We need cheap three-bed housing for Kemptown, for a better class of resident.”
The stultifying comments from the usual Nimbys betray the fact they don’t understand how the city’s housing issues need to be addressed. It’s obvious that the high-density apartments will eventually go through though, much to the chagrin of the usual high-density objectors.
And working class folk like Cllr David McGregor are on the side of the home-owning NIMBYs. Presumably being told what to do by his wiser privately educated leader. Incredible.
And Tom Druitt breathes a sigh of relief as he doesn’t have to find a new site for his Big Lemon Bus depot.
The current ex-CEGB location comes with all the electricity he needs included in the rent he pays. Very handy for powering battery buses.
If Tom moves he will have to pay market prices for power and/or build a giant solar farm.
I remember you making this comment before. It’s something I’ve not really thought about. That’ll be quite a hit into the business structure if suddenly that cost gets added. Makes me wonder if his business would survive should that happen?
Great, let’s just leave it looking an absolute mess and an eyesore for many more years.
It’s an absolutely vile looking part of Brighton that these developers would have made it look great but once again the elderly who sit in their million pound homes they paid pennies for ram their outdated opinions down everyone’s throats because they have nothing better to do.
Nasty James, nasty.
It’s the truth is what James said
It’s not nasty it’s the truth!
Well said 👏
Correct
Those indulging in elder abuse in these comments seem to forget it won’t be the under 40s who can afford their overpriced flats.
Insult their target market at their peril, though hopefully the older demographic will have more sense than to buy a box of ticky tacky with free health risk masquerading as ‘luxury’.
Sit back down and shut up boomer. Be seen and not heard or we’ll take away your pension.
Bless. Telling someone to shut up just shows you don’t really have anything intelligent to say. I criticise Barry a lot, but at least he forms an opinion rather than devolving into petty insults. Feel free to prove me wrong. I dare you.
The designs aesthetically looked nice, certainly. Personally, my objections are down to healthcare and inadequate social housing provision. These would not be affordable to the majority of people, and we have examples of developments, such as those down Brighton Marina what ends up happening.
A bad development doesn’t help Brighton. If you argue that you want something that “looks great” – we could always do with more park space, or a purpose-built event square.
How is a Brighton worker living in a cramped flat and finally able to buy a place of their own in this project going to put extra strain on local services? WE ALREADY LIVE HERE BUT HAVE NOWHERE TO BUY.
It’s a good question, but this isn’t a good answer.
I’m one of the elderly,but dont have the ( millions) as suggested,we were also called up to serve this country,!! As a apprentice electrician I used to earn eleven pence,and three farthings an hour,total one pound,one shilling a week!it was a mend and make do society then,and saving up was very hard to do.who has left the infrastructure, and sacrifice for this country,not you youngsters,you dont have clue ,in you show of ,dont give a monkeys world, what us old ones of got ,was gained through hard graft,no machinery to dig roads ,or putting ready made mortar on a bricklayers board, we had to use our strength of our bodies,and endure the pain at manual work,half of you lot think it was built by aliens you numpty,you lot have had it far to easy I bet your parents have got there own house and you don’t work,but go to college, or uni,you moron
Was this written by BoomerGPT?
hahahaha
Show some respect
OK boomer
OK Boomer
American express nearly left this city because of all the bull of people not wanting a new development in kemptown/Edward Street, should be grateful that someone is willing to develop here,the city is getting bigger by the day,them flats and the social housing is needed, snap out of complaining, thing is,no matter where you build you’ll always piss someone off,nobody is entitled to a view.
The reality unfortunately though is that the social housing target would never be achieved. It is extremely common for developers to turn around and say it will be 40% initially, then conduct a viability study and say it’s no longer viable, by which point there is no recourse to prevent the developer from doing what they want.
The design in principle is not achieving what the city needs. I get your argument that being a less ideal development is better than having no development, and it sounds, on the face of it, reasonable, however, it would be extremely difficult to improve once it is granted, so it is right to reject until there is either a mandatory appeal upheld, or the development is more in line with what the city actually needs.
Good. it was a monster development and a visual abomination. Berkeley have had nothing but problems with their Southall gasworks development and residents claiming it has made them ill. Lessons must be learned.
Is such a project insurable?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/27/scientists-to-investigate-health-fears-southall-west-london-development-green-quarter#:~:text=Scientists%20are%20to%20investigate%20the,has%20caused%20multiple%20health%20problems.
It will be passed on appeal, especially with PM Starmer around the corner and the end of the Tory NIMBY platform of selfish dinosaurs whining every time a cloud moves in front of the sun.
It will be an uninsurable project after Southall. The Council won’t accept public liability either. And those with the money to buy any high-priced flats resulting would surely rather choose a property elsewhere without a health risk attached.
No one cares what you think. Sit back down, shut up, and don’t speak unless you are spoken to.
There are countless developments in London and all round the UK built on disused power stations, gas works and former industrial sites. The whole of the new Nine Elms and Vauxhall development in London are on former gas works, as are Kennington, King’s Cross, Battersea power station, Stratford Olympic park! Oh but it won’t work in Brighton.
The proposal looked absolutely great, a great place to live and desperately needed.. and the alternative is a hideous polluted eyesore … but of course you still keep you view so that’s just fine
You’re comparing apples to oranges here, I’m afraid.
Pipe down fukwit.
And you think you won’t ever get old? You wait and see what you’re be like in thirty year’s time! We’ve all been young and had the same struggles so no need to be rude to the older generation as it will be you at some point.
As a city of Sancturary every effort should be made to increase the provision of housing for refugees. There are many who need decent housing and it is our responsibility to provide it. There was no mention of refugee provision in the planning considerations by any party.
There’s no way it would have been used for refugee housing provision. It’s way too costly.
By my reckoning that works out at an average £560,000 per unit unless my maths is completely wrong. Completely affordable!!!
Officer advice was to grant. This decision is perverse and will surely succeed on appeal. The council (taxpayers) will end up paying hundreds of thousands in legal fees.
No it was ‘minded to grant’ which isn’t the same as a ‘grant’ recomendation.
But as I wrote right up at the bengining it’s more than likely that this will go to appeal and the Inspector will approve the application and that will be without some of the ameleorating conditions the committee would have made.
I can’t disagree with you there, Chris. It’s frustrating how castrated councils are when it comes to planning and development.
No one agrees with you, fukwit
Basic insults aren’t particularly interesting or constructive, Mark.
Build a new Whitehawk Bus Depot/Bell Tower Estate and Lidl on the Gasworks site, with green rooves and trees, then build housing with retail frontages on the vacated and ex Whitehawk Inn and Waldorf School sites . Cover over Marine way, build a park and 3 seaside apartment blocks facinf the sea, between Marine Gate and Courcel building aping the Marine Gate
Whitehawk Inn has already been brought by an educational company; from what I’ve heard, for way over the odds for what it is worth. I wonder if they’ve discovered the significant and expensive damage on the roof?