Councillors were “obliged” to reflect public concern about a £280 million plan to build almost 500 flats on the old Brighton gasworks site, a planning inspector was told today (Tuesday 18 March).
Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee turned down the application submitted by St William, which is owned by one of Britain’s biggest housebuilders, the Berkeley Group.
St William appealed against the refusal and today a public inquiry started at Brighton Town Hall.
Celina Colquhoun, for the council, said that councillors were entitled to take a different view of scheme to the planning officer who wrote a report recommending that it be approved.
Miss Colquhoun said: “At the heart of the appellant’s apparent protests is clearly that the committee chose to disagree with its officer.
“It has relied upon the committee meeting and the matters discussed therein to suggest that the reasons for refusal and the council’s position at this appeal is unreasonable because the evidence goes beyond the issues that were specifically raised at the meeting.
“This in itself ignores the clear direction in (planning law) which states that a ‘local planning authority must, in determining an application for planning permission, take into account any representations made’.
“It is also clearly not necessary within a committee debate to refer to and raise and debate all those representations – nor is it required to set out which representations it has taken into account within the reasons for refusal either.”
Miss Colquhoun said that the council had received a huge number of representations on various topics which took a different view to planning officials.
She said: “The committee members were obliged to take these representations into account as much as the views of their officers and then are also expected to use their own knowledge and judgment.
“The proper question for the Inspector is whether the matters raised by any of the parties at this appeal are relevant to and appropriate for his assessment of the acceptability of the scheme and whether he can recommend the Secretary of State allow or refuse the scheme.
“It will be shown that the council was correct to refuse the application and that the Secretary of State would also be justified in refusing consent through this appeal.”
Miss Colquhoun told planning inspector Dominic Young: “There is no issue that the contribution of 495 housing units – even if none of them is affordable – would make a significant contribution to the council’s housing land supply which currently stands at 1.4 years.
“There is also no issue, given that the site is a brownfield site, that the inspector should have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework which states that substantial weight be given to the ‘value’ of using ‘suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs’ and that such proposals ‘should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused’.
“It is further clear that the principle of the site’s suitability for future development of a mixed-use housing scheme (is accepted).
“However, none of the above gives rise to an overriding justification for development which fails to meet policy and gives rise to unacceptable levels of harm.
“In other words, it would be wrong to interpret the government’s position as ‘maximise use of brownfield for housing at any cost’.
“It is also clearly not the approach set out within the development plan.
“The scheme is acknowledged within the planning officer’s report to the Planning Committee as a ‘very dense scheme’ which ‘would represent a major change to the townscape and visual amenity of the local area’.
“The appellant’s approach from the start has been to try to maximise the number of dwellings while seeking to downplay the real impact in heritage terms.
“(It tries) to focus on individual elements close to the site, such as the Courcels building, as reference points to justify a high-density development with a series of tall buildings rather than properly reflect the wider character of the area including and note the existing role of the site both in physical and historic terms.
“The appellant’s ambitions have led to a development that represents a harmful overdevelopment which falls short both in design and amenity terms and which inter alia gives rise to a strong reason in heritage terms to refuse it.
“It is of particular note that the appellant has at points chosen to take an unfortunately aggressive approach to the appeal in a number of its communications. It has already determined to apply for costs as we understand it.
“It was no doubt disappointed that the committee did not agree with the council officer’s recommendations but its representatives have frankly taken a rather odd if not disingenuous approach.
“(It has alleged) that the reasons for refusal themselves fail to accord with (planning law) as well as now alleging that the council’s evidence goes well beyond the reasons.”
Miss Colquhoun also said: “The appellant has in its evidence sought to emphasise not only the fact that the council’s case officer supported the grant of permission for the appeal scheme but that, of the 17 departments within the council and over 20 statutory consultees, only one (the UK Health Security Agency) formally objected to the scheme.
“They have been less keen to draw attention to the fact that some 1,700 representations were received by the council from the public, together with views from interested non statutory bodies such as Save Britain’s Heritage, Rottingdean Heritage, the Kemp Town Society, Brighton and Hove Heritage Commission, the Brighton Society, Regency Squares Community, Regency Society of Brighton and Hove and the Georgian Group all objecting to the appeal scheme.
“Of the statutory consultees, the appellant has sought to draw support in particular from the fact that Historic England had ‘not objected’ to the scheme.
“This is correct as far as it goes. The full text of Historic England’s concerns … is before the inspector.
“It was of course not for Historic England to carry out the exercise of weighing the public benefits of the scheme against the harm to heritage. That is a matter for the decision-maker.
“In addition, while the council’s heritage team concluded that fewer heritage assets would be affected, the Conservation Advisory Group, which is a recognised advisory body to the council, raised additional concerns and objected to the scheme.
“These representations, together with all the relevant application documents, as well as the officer’s assessment and recommendations, were before the council and the members of the committee and would have been relevant to the members’ assessment as part of the decision-making process.”
And the councillors were under a duty to take into account all relevant representations, she said.
Miss Colquhoun also said: “The scheme does not include the provision of any affordable housing despite the requirement for 40 per cent within the plan.
“This followed the submission of a financial viability assessment by the appellant which was reviewed by the DVS (District Valuer Services).
“The overall conclusion of the DVS was that a nil contribution could be justified albeit that this should be subject to subsequent review and the council accepted this advice.”
This is subject to review, particularly if the scheme proves to be more profitable than expected, and includes the possibility of an application to the government agency Homes England for grant funding.
Miss Colquhoun added: “It may be noted that the appellant’s financial viability assessment shows the scheme, even without affordable housing, as not providing a sufficient return to be viable but asserts that it is still prepared to proceed with and build the scheme.”
She spoke about the height of the scheme so close to the Kemp Town Conservation Area which starts just 100 yards from the gasworks site.
The appeal continues.
Let’s hope this gets denied again and we can focus our energy, money and limited builders on creatinn housing in the many more suitable areas where we desperately need them in brighton
Curious, but where are these many more suitable areas you are thinking about?
The Lidl could move to it like we did with the other Brighton gasworks and/or smaller homes
The highest use of homes right now is areas around universities that are more fit for families, so new housing specifically for students should be assembled closest to where they are needed so those normal homes can be freed up again
Hmm…a creatinn speaking?
You are despised by the generations you’ve stolen home ownership from.
In what way have they stolen home ownership?
Toads Hole Valley perhaps? If you fancy a hike. V.steep round there.
Let’s hope common sense prevails over NIMBYism and bogus arguments about soil so we can finally get some flats built in an area that’s desperately crying out for more housing. 500 extra flats paying council tax also would probably help the council coffers
You do realise they were not planning to create affordable housing, so in reality it wouldn’t help with the housing crisis…
You do realise that prices are a result of supply and demand?
You can expect your house price to reduce to what it was when you bought it, adjusted for inflation.
Your manufactured bubble has burst, time for you to experience the other side of the curve.
Hmm, make up your mind, prices are either high due to supply and demand or there not.
Someone wanting to sell their property will get a high price so won’t expect the price to be reduced anytime soon, but once this development takes place, prices might stagnate a bit.
Like with the Royal Mail site in Patchem some of the objections were based on proper issues and not just NIMBYism.
It’s a shame that sometimes real issues – like soil contamination on both sites – get so over egged that they become laughable.
For example some said the whole gas works site was heavily contaminated but in reality the heavy contamination was restricted to a small part of the site.
Nothing to do with NIMBY’s, locals actually welcome new housing schemes. Having followed this development from day one, you might discover the site has lain dormant since the 1960’s and still contains the gas holders. The holders are in the lowered position and we don’t know what condition they are in. Careful study of the site and structures, show they are in a poor state of repair so who knows what condition the gas holders are in and if anything has contaminated the soil.
You don’t need to be a scientist to work out that with the units under ground and rusting, there will be some harmful gases and other nasties in the ground and earlier surveys showed evidence of contaminated soil and people with any intelligence will know the soil will be contaminated anyway.
Further, evidence from a similar scheme in Southall, suggests harmful toxins are present and causing health problems with residents. Arguments from some will state ‘What about the Hove site’, where Tesco’s now is.
The point missed here, Tesco’s is a commercial outlet not a dense residential site as this site is going to be.
Angela Rayner has a remit to build, build, and build again. These hypocritical Kemp Town Nimbys and the Council are going to get their sorry bottoms handed to them.
Concern about releasing carcinogenic toxins from a rotting gaswork site, where other similar areas have experienced an increase in respiratory disease following gaswork site develop is hardly NIMBYism, is it? Do you not think that is worth exploring?
Are their bats and world war 1 graves there too?
I can see you’re having trouble adjusting to being background noise.
Are their bats and world war 1 graves there too? You ask.
Now that’s an interesting comment.
I’ve seen the odd Fox scattering across the bus yard there in the general direction of the old gas holders and seen other wild life around too so maybe there are bats there.
As for WW1 graves, never been noted as being a church yard at any point but there’s historical reports of it being attacked a number of times during WW2, with one of the containers being completely destroyed. This leads on to the possibility of there being munitions on the site and a point against the bogus contaminated soil deniers nicely.
I was going to say bats don’t cause respiratory illness…
Thank you Benjamin, also of course the plans don’t include affordable housing, no plans for NHS services, schools and what have you. People are quick to mouth off NIMBY’s when they don’t have the full facts and details at hand.
Indeed. And to be balanced, there are always going to be some NIMBY arguments in there as well; however, there have been quite legitimate and well-articulated concerns raised.
Mr Fry on the other hand – a developer – enjoys insulting people and trying to get a rise from them for quintessentially being more intelligent in their conversations on the subject. Ad hominem is the dull weapon of someone who can’t make a reasonable retort in my experience.
How much is the public enquiry going to cost council taxpayers? And is the council going to be schooled again when the L3 Harris appeal is heard at great expense?
And yet Theresa chose to put remaining in the Labour group over representing “residents in my ward”, abstaining to avoid representing them in the schools intake vote. This despite saying she “didn’t agree” with 20% and 5% “was not what I wanted”. It seems the valiant defenders of local democracy are only willing to selflessly man the barricades for some, and being in the Party overrides being “obliged” to represent ward residents.
The former gas works site in Hove now has a large Tesco on it. Why not move Lidl to the East Brighton Gasworks and build flats on the current Lidl site? It makes sense that the former gasworks remains an industrial area with some retail. Tastefully constructed of course.
Let’s not kid ourselves that these proposed flats are for anyone in local housing need after all. In which case they are unnecessary and Ms Rayner can go and whistle re her “targets!” Her one size fits all plan won’t work anyway as each area is very different in geographic, economic and housing need. She’d be better offering incentives to go and live in the poorest areas of the country where housing is cheaper and more available and economic rejuvenation is most needed. Not everyone can fit into Brighton and Hove when all is said and done, and nor should they try.
The designs of these blocks are also horrendously ugly for a seaside resort. Am surprised that Berkeley Homes – which used to be quite a posh developer – have now gone so downmarket these days.
totally agree
Because the revenues don’t support spending above the £4000/m2 build cost currently rumoured to be the build cost. This is on par with those they are currently building up at the Oval if you want to visit and see in the flesh, so to speak.
Tower Hamlets on sea.
St William will win the appeal, their all just going through the motions.
I’m inclined to agree. The strategy of frustrating the process will only last for so long. Still, if it’s going to happen, I hope a good proportion of CIL money is given and social obligation work is provided, with the LPS blocks as they are, there’s definitely going to be work in the near future needed!
Shame there isn’t a running poll showing those for and against. This development will uplift the area if anything. Locals should be focussing on negotiatng space within the commercial and shared areas for them to use free of charge. I am sure St WIlliam will be receptive as they have been on London schemes.
Reportedly, the cost margins were so tight that wouldn’t happen, but I like the sentiment. Plus, there’s Robert Lodge, Valley Social, Whitehawk Inn, Kingfisher, and The Crew Club all nearby that locals could use already.