An appeal has started after Brighton and Hove City Council turned down a planning application for 495 homes on the old gasworks site in east Brighton.
The £280 million scheme included nine blocks of flats up to 12 storeys high on a five-acre site bounded by the B2066 Roedean Road, Marina Way and Boundary Road.
The appellant is St William, which is owned by one of Britain’s biggest housebuilders, the Berkeley Group.
The application has been called in by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner, who will make the final decision.
The planning inspector Dominic Young will make a recommendation to the secretary of state after hearing arguments about three main issues at Brighton Town Hall.
These are the effects of the scheme on the character and appearance of the local area, the effects on the area’s heritage and the living conditions for existing and future residents.
James Maurici, for St William, said: “When a developer seeks planning permission for housing on a greenfield site, the cry goes up from those objecting that brownfield land should be used instead.
“Here, the appellant seeks permission to comprehensively redevelop a ‘degraded’ brownfield gasworks site and deliver 495 much-needed new homes with potentially up to 198 affordable homes.
“Regrettably, but not surprisingly, the scheme generated much local objection.
“Following very significant engagement between the appellant and the council going back five years, resulting in changes to the scheme, the council’s professional planning officers recommended approval. They were absolutely right to do so.
“In the face of local opposition, members decided to overturn the good advice of their officers and to refuse planning permission.”
Mr Maurici said that the scheme would not only transform a derelict brownfield site but would provide many benefits including almost 500 homes and almost 200 jobs.
He said that an average of just 522 homes a year had been built since 2010 but almost 2,500 homes a year were needed if the council were to meet housing need.
He added: “The council agrees it has an ‘acute need for additional housing’.”
He also said that the council had earmarked the site for housing and said that it was suitable for hundreds of homes – 340 compared with the 495 in the application.
Mr Maurici said: “(The scheme) delivers the transformation which has been promised to the people of Brighton but not delivered for far too long.
“This is an allocated site – and has been since the 2005 local plan – and so we are delivering on the promise of the development plan.
“Although it is agreed with the council that, as matters stand, the provision of any affordable housing is unviable, the appellant is seeking grant funding to provide 40 per cent affordable homes on site, again a ‘significant public benefit’.
“The new commercial floorspace will increase job opportunities, providing up to 195 new jobs – agreed to be a ‘clear improvement to the function and vitality of the site in providing employment’,”
He said that this was “something which will add employment opportunities in one of the most deprived parts of the city, increasing job opportunities in the development area and Brighton more widely”.
Mr Maurici also said: “While it is locally controversial – and what major scheme is not – it has
not been controversial with statutory consultees.
“Of the 17 internal council departments and over 20 external and statutory consultees, only one objected.
“Consultees whose remit directly impacts the matters before you – such as Historic England and the South Downs National Park Authority – did not object.
“So on any metric, these are substantial public benefits and weigh very, very heavily in favour of a grant of permission.
“There are many planning cases that are finely balanced. This is not one of them. Indeed, the officer report summarises the position well.”
The report to the council’s Planning Committee said: “The public benefits of the scheme overall, which includes the provision of a significant amount of housing, are such that they clearly outweigh the heritage harm identified, any limited impacts on landscape or townscape and the harm to neighbouring amenity.”
Mr Maurici said that national policy required that “proposals which use suitable brownfield land
‘should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused’”.
He said: “Since members determined to override the views of officers, national planning policy has moved even more decisively in favour of this scheme.”
The council had two main reasons for refusing the scheme that were at issue, he said, but the Brighton Gasworks Coalition “has sought to put a large number of additional issues in play”.
Mr Maurici accused the council of “case creep” – adding complaints about the scheme – obstructing the appeal and, along with the Brighton Gasworks Coalition, adopting a scattergun approach.
He focused on the three issues set out by Mr Young, starting with the townscape and landscape.
He said: “The scheme has been the subject of extensive design revisions and input by the council officers.
“Far from representing ‘overdevelopment’, the scheme is efficiently reusing this brownfield site, has minimised its impacts on the nearby national park to the extent they are acceptable, is well designed and will positively enhance the poor context of the area. Complaints are made about density.
“These ring hollow. This government intends to build 1.5 million homes. The housing needs of this city are acute.
“And in a city which has the sea on one side and a national park on the other, planning decisions must make the absolute best use of land. That is what this scheme does.
“While there will be change, that is an inevitable product of the allocation of this site, and the changes brought by this particular scheme are clearly acceptable.
“Indeed, as set out in the officer’s report on balance and in the longer term the proposed development would enhance the local landscape.
“The appeal site is not located within a conservation area nor does it contain any listed buildings or structures or any nationally designated heritage assets.
“There is a non-designated flint wall along the site but that has never been considered a reason to refuse the scheme.
“It must be made clear at the outset that Historic England did not object. “This is an area where the council’s ‘case creep’ has been particularly pronounced.
“The council now alleges harm to 53 assets, comprising 217 listed properties. The increase in the number of assets now alleged to be harmed is preposterous and unreasonable.
“Fundamentally, there is
• no harm to the Kemp Town Conservation Area or listed buildings within it – a view endorsed by officers and the council’s heritage team
• no harm to the East Cliff Conservation Area or listed buildings within it – or indeed any other listed building now identified by the council
• a low level of less than substantial harm to the French Convalescent Home and some harm to Marine Gate, albeit the latter is offset to produce no net harm by enhancement to Marine Gate’s setting
• harm arising from the loss of the flint wall (a non-designated heritage asset), albeit walls of this type are common in Brighton and Hove
“The council’s case is confined to allegations in relation to future residents. The living conditions of existing residents and future occupiers of the development is perfectly acceptable.
“For existing residents, their outlook to a derelict appeal site is replaced by an attractive new urban quarter without unacceptable impacts on privacy or amenity.
“For proposed residents, the number of dual aspect units have been maximised, there is a pleasant outlook over the public realm for all – and some have views of the sea or South Downs.
“There is usable amenity space, sufficient privacy for all and, while the council complains about a sense of enclosure generally, that is comparable to a typical urban street.”
Mr Maurici addressed the issue of contaminated land. He said: “A significant amount of remedial work and investigation has been undertaken at the site over the past 30 years. The council agrees.
“The risks of any impacts can be managed by condition – and we say it is relevant that no objection has been raised either by the Environment Agency or the council’s environmental health team.
“The planning balance weighs clearly and demonstrably in favour of the grant of permission in this case. There is no reasonable basis for the council to have refused permission in this case.
“Its approach, and the extensive case creep since and obstruction thereafter, are entirely unreasonable.
“The Planning and Infrastructure Bill published recently is looking to limit the ability of a planning committee to overturn officer recommendations especially on allocated sites.
“The government has raised concern about cases where ‘the development proposal was on an allocated site and in line with policy expectations but the committee refused the application against officer advice … creating delays for all’.
“That sounds like this case. Little wonder then that this appeal was recovered by the Secretary of State because it significantly impacts on the government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply.
“For all those reasons, in due course you will be asked to recommend the Secretary of State grant approval as soon as possible, and to award the appellant its full costs of having to pursue this wholly unnecessary appeal.”
The appeal continues.
12 stories overlooking East Brighton Park will create shadow and impinge on the amount of sunshine. This will affect grass quality. Increased traffic and pressures on local infrastructure will abound. No doubt Roedean fire station will soon be closed and sold off “for efficiency savings” but no discernable benefit to the public. Perhaps the developer could sponsor a new engine in order to reach fires on upper floors?
That development could hardly be more ugly and overbearing if it tried. Completely out of keeping with Brighton. And that’s the Artist’s impression, so imagine how much WORSE the real thing would be! A bit of grass on the roof is pathetic if that’s their idea of trying to blend in and pretend they care about the environment. Grass roofs are also not without problems and need maintenance in their own right.
Back to the drawing board. Let’s at least see something Regency-inspired.
I’ll move if that gets approved
East Brighton park is huge and there is vehicle access to the front, back and both sides, I’d take a guess and say your one of those Tesla driving neighbours from Roedean who would rather people sleep in tents that possibly encroach on your beloved ground, my you must have moaned when the marina was thought off!
Grass quality? Is that a wind up? Why not knock Marine Gate down, that will help the grass grow! This site has been an eyesore for decades, a £280m investment and you are moaning, it’s pathetic, Nimbyism at its best!😂
I hope it’s approved!
“Although it is agreed with the council that, as matters stand, the provision of any affordable housing is unviable, the appellant is seeking grant funding to provide 40 per cent affordable homes on site, again a ‘significant public benefit’.”
This is soon followed by “…The housing needs of this city are acute.” Indeed – there are several thousand families in Brighton in desperate need of social housing.
So more public, sorry, “grant” funding to allow privatisation of profits. Affordable housing is currently defined by BHCC as being 20% lower than market rate rents and property prices.
We need social housing for people from Brighton in Brighton, not more unaffordable properties that Brighton residents cannot afford to live in.
Claiming that “affordable housing is unviable” and then proposing to stick 500 dense flats in with additional ‘grants’ aka public money just smacks of greed and lack of care for the community. There is an acute need for housing but not dense, low quality housing without appropriate ratio of amenities and services. Otherwise in 5 years it will be another expensive slum.