The developer behind a £280 million scheme for almost 500 homes on the site of the old Brighton gasworks is preparing an appeal.
St William, part of the Berkeley Group, a £5 billion housebuilding business, said that it had worked with Brighton and Hove City Council on the scheme for the past four years.
But ever since the original planning application was submitted in 2021, objectors have criticised the scheme to build 11 blocks of flats up to 12 storeys high on the former gasworks site.
Neighbours set up a campaign group, AGHAST (Action on Gasworks Housing Affordability, Safety and Transparency), and more than 1,700 objections were sent to the council.
Several other civic and heritage organisations submitted objections in addition to AGHAST – and a report to the council’s Planning Committee set out dozens of reasons for those objections.
These included the design and appearance of the scheme, in Marina Way, and the effects on the area’s heritage, including listed buildings and conservations areas.
Some said that it breached or failed to comply with council planning policies, such as those governing proposed tall buildings.
Others sited concerns about land contamination, risks to public health and safety, air quality, noise pollution, extra traffic adding to congestion, particularly on the busy A259 seafront road, and potential parking problems.
And the quality and standard of the proposed housing came in for criticism, along with concerns about the strength of the commitment to affordable housing.
Unusually, representatives of a housing association, Sovereign, attended the decisive meeting of the council’s Planning Committee at Hove Town Hall last Wednesday (22 May), expressing a willingness to take on 198 flats.
Councillors were told that St William had not consulted people living in the area in a meaningful way although some said that it had shared too many documents that were full of hard-to-understand details.
The report to councillors recommended that the scheme be approved subject to a number conditions including legal agreements with the council on a number of points.
But the committee voted seven to three against the plans, prompting tears of joy from the campaigners and tears of frustration and disappointment from some in the St William team.
The reasons for turning down the scheme at the end of the six-and-a-half-hour meeting included, among other reasons, concerns that it would be too big and cramped, would harm the area’s historic heritage and contained too few family homes.
Today (Tuesday 28 May) St William said: “We are disappointed with the Planning Committee’s decision to refuse this application, which was recommended for approval by planning officers, and are preparing for an appeal.
“We have worked closely with the planning and design team at Brighton and Hove City Council over the last four years to develop a balanced and high-quality proposal which would regenerate an underused brownfield site to deliver 495 low carbon homes, 40 per cent of which would be affordable homes subject to attracting grant from Homes England.
“These carefully designed plans would also deliver high-quality public open space, new pedestrian and cycle routes and a mix of commercial uses to support up to 195 jobs and bring lasting economic benefits to the city.”
The area currently is a bus depot and an old gasworks, like bomb site post-war Britain. This is Brighton. We are a city in the south east, this is not the industrial north.
Brighton needs this scheme. It’s modern, clean and desirable. Being away from the central city, it might create something likeLondon’s East End and may spark a desirable city village vibe, bringing the whole area up to somewhere you might actually want to go. God knows, these foothills of Whitehawk could do with it, and Brighton as a whole could do with it too.
I don’t understand some people. If people are so terrified of change, then Eastbourne is a good shout.
I agree with on the point of housing, homes are very much needed. There have been a lot of discrepancies coming up in this process though.
Their viability documents having significantly different figures, and the 40% being an unconfirmed offering, as it is gambling on a grant of taxpayer’s money, which we cant be certain that they will get, meaning there is a risk this because just investment homes, with very little local use.
I’d be a bit more persuaded if they could confirm grant funding from Homes England to solidify their social housing offering, but considering the upcoming election, I think everything will be on the back burner for a little while.
How much will it cost the council in appeal costs and defending the decision? Often developers are awarded costs as well if the decision is unreasonable. Could be hundreds of thousands to a cash strapped Council.
Hmm, the decision made doesn’t seem unreasonable. You’d have a hard time proving that one I suspect, alongside a lot of public interesting objecting, I can’t personally see such an award being given. Still, stranger things have happened.
I dont agree, usually if the officer is minded to approve there are strong planning grounds to do so. To overturn the officers decision based on people objecting simply isn’t adequate unless meaningful planning grounds can be found.
Wealden council have found this out to their detriment, over 700k of public money being spent paying developers. The developers know they’ll win which is why they are appealing.
Indeed. If an application is refused on non planning grounds then it is more than likely the Inspector will grant costs to the applicant. It’s why a councils planning and legal officers go to great lengths to get committee members to expalin their decisions for refusing if they go against the officers recommendations.
The awarding of fees does happen but not often.
@Benjamin – the decision to reject may appear on the face of it to be a reasonable one but a ‘reasonable’ decision to the person on the street may be unreasonable on planning grounds.
Indeed, the advice of the planning officers are extremely important.
They won’t.
If there more than a few objections, then they are required to go to committee. The decision there is driven by councillors being hounded by individuals and Nimby pressure groups, unless they get a brown envelope.
This is just process. There is no way they won’t be granted on appeal, and the developer knows it, and they wouldn’t have invested huge amounts in the scheme this far if there was any chance it wouldn’t succeed.
It just has to play out. This is just the way things are done, and the council won’t waste time and effort fighting this particular lost cause. Nimbyism is not in the interests of the city overall, or future generations, and we need to overcome this sort of mentality. It alone has halted all on-shore wind farms, and that’s really serious.
Nimby mentality is not to be tolerated if we are to get to net-zero, and that includes new modern living.
Please stop this ‘brown envelope’ nonsense.
If you have any evidence of corruption then take it to the police.
Corruption in local government is astonisingly rare.
A decision to reject a planing application have to be made on planning grounds. Numbers of objectors don’t come into it. it is the quality of the objection that matters and if it relates to planning grounds. Councillots on the plannign committee receive regular training on the lagal process of plannign and how they should reach a decision.
OK, point taken, but we as a community are still reeling from the i360 scandal, and left with the debt. We have been scammed before, and although The Greens are history here, we are still left with the bad smell of corruption. I have no head how the local taxpayers will deal with the i360 debt. It’s a scandal.
The i360 is indeed a scandal. But blame the Tories as well as the Greens because they both voted for the much larger loan than was originally envisaged.
We as council tax payera are having £2m a year of our money allocated as part of the councils budget to pay off the loan that could have been used to pay for all sorts of other services.
On safety grounds alone, this refusal must stand. Where will the liability lie for future public health issues if it goes ahead? It is an uninsurable risk. Look no further for mounting evidence of this than Berkeley’s previous Southall gasworks development.
Does the Council want to risk picking up the tab for this?
Berkeley has lost its way since the days of its sensitive and stunning AllSaints hospital restoration/redevelopment in Eastbourne.
It is also now impossible to find sufficient skilled and legal labour for projects of this size and complexity in UK.
Safety, don’t make me LAUGH Boomer!
Your lot are terrorists and will be put in your place in your retirement when you’re too frail to fight back.
Sell your house now and get your money ready to pay your social care and medical costs in your old age.
You did mention this before, and honestly, I have to agree with you there. At the very least some clarification and reassurances in the form of liability acceptance.
As much as I am critical of you a fair bit Barry on many issues, I’m sorry you have to read vile hatred from the likes of Mark which adds nothing of value to the conversation – something that would feel at home on 4chan or the door of a cubicle in a pub somewhere.
Totally agree mate I feel like these other comments are bots who don’t really care about the area
We badly need new affordable homes in our city. The sooner an agreement is reached on moving forward with a development here the better.
There never is anything affordable once all the variations to consent go through….
Well the proposed high story building in the marina was turned down at appeal. Why does anyone think differently about this one ? Maybe if the developer made it less dense and not as high it would have gone through?
Having now read the actual refusal notice published today on the planning portal we can all see that the grounds for refusal were predominantly one of overcrowding, height and density. The existing policies that dictate these restrictions are referred to in the decision. As I can see these polices as part of the city plan parts 1 and 2, I can only assume that so does St William. I have to ask then why does St William feel that they are exempt from these policies ? These policies form the framework or guidance to anyone wishing to develop a site here. If they appeal and win then technically all of the policies in the city plans are obsolete overnight.
How about you stop being terrorists and massive burdens to subsequent generations?
We’re going to means test your pension and put you in a home when you’re too old to fight back.
Enjoy x
A very reasonable point Chris, I think there is a larger question there as well and councils not having enough control over city planning as part of a strategy. That’s a national issue, but it certainly comes across when you highlight points like this.