A £50 million project to build new council flats can move forward after the scheme was granted planning permission.
Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee unanimously backed the plans for 306 flats at the north end of the Sackville Trading Estate, in Hove, at a meeting at Hove Town Hall today (Wednesday 5 November).
Officials backed the scheme subject to legal agreements to be signed off by the end of February and councillors voted in favour.
But Independent councillor Samer Bagaeen, who represents Westdene and Hove Park, spoke against the application, raising concerns about the effects on infrastructure in the area.
Councillor Bagaeen, who is a professor of town planning, said: “While we all recognise the need for growth, responsible development must be matched by adequate infrastructure.
“Unfortunately, I do not believe the current proposal does enough and falls short in several critical areas: highways and transport, utilities and healthcare.
“I am quite confident we can work together to ensure that growth benefits everyone, now and in the future, by demanding responsible sustainable planning from the outset.”
He asked the committee to add conditions to prevent people from moving into the proposed flats until highways and utilities improvements were in place, particularly at the Sackville Road traffic light crossroads.
Councillor Bagaeen also wanted to ensure that no more than 250 homes were occupied before a doctors’ surgery was in place.
The committee was told that a GP surgery did not form part of the scheme.
Hyde Housing’s regional development director for the south, Sarah Poulter, said that the site would be the third joint project between the housing association and the council since 2017 offering “truly affordable” housing for people on the council waiting list.
She said: “The housing affordability crisis in the city is stark. There are 5,000 live applications on the housing register, 2,100 households in temporary accommodation and one in 77 people in the city experiencing homelessness, a third of those being children.
“The proposals provide desperately needed and genuinely affordable council rented housing.”
Councillors raised concerns about the effect of the scheme on traffic, the loss of previously planned under-croft parking and more passengers on the already busy bus services.
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald said: “It does look shabby with all those sheds. I was hoping this design would be an improvement but does look rather drab.
“That whole area looks more like New York or Legoland, with those housing blocks. It’s a shame the under-croft parking is not included. There will be probably be overspill into the streets.”
Labour councillor Joy Robinson said: “I am concerned about the lack of parking. It feels like an equalities issue where we’re saying this is social housing. We want everybody working but if you’ve got a job that requires a car to get to work or to do your job, don’t come and live here. That’s not particularly good.
“I don’t like the fact there is a lack of community space or GP surgery, which is much broader, but we do need the houses.”
Green councillor Kerry Pickett said: “I would suggest the ecological enhancements could have gone a bit further. There was a suggestion of a green roof or something. That would have been amazing.
“There is the issue with parking. It’s unfortunate it didn’t continue with the under-croft because that would have been amazing.”
Labour councillor Maureen Winder was disappointed with the design, especially because the public areas were “basic” rather than making it a “real living place”.
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey agreed with the points made by other councillors and said: “I do want to see more work put into public transport in that area. We’ve heard that buses can be crowded during rush-hour times.
“To bump another 200 to 300 people on to those routes could be quite bad. I just regret we can’t control the bus company.”
Labour councillor Sam Parrott said that the proposed buildings met only “minimal requirements” which, she said, did not bring “joy”.
Subject to grant funding from a government agency, Homes England, the council proposes to let 183 of the flats for a “social rent”. The Hyde housing association is expected to market 123 homes for shared ownership.
The plans included 109 one-bedroom flats, 137 with two bedrooms, 58 with three bedrooms and two with four bedrooms.
The general layout, form and height of the proposed blocks followed a previously approved scheme for a care community, councillors were told.
The earlier scheme was approved in August 2020 as part of the Moda planning application to build more than 500 flats for commercial rent on the Sackville Trading Estate and Coal Yard land.
Looks like they are building the slums of the future, if its about building to minimum standards without consideration of place and what makes a happy and sustainable community!
To ignore the recommendations of a Councillor who is also a Professor of Town Planning shows the state of which the council is operating at. For planning proposals that are suggesting the absolute bare minimum standards to be approved is absolutely appalling. We really are scraping the absolute bottom of the bucket here, aren’t we?!
We should demand more from our council and far more from these ridiculous for-profit developers masquerading as ‘housing associations’ touting ‘affordable’ housing which ensures tenants never actually own property and puts even more money into the pockets of private interests.
I agree, I think pragmatically, planning department is on a defensive back foot after the Gasworks. Unless there’s a super strong argument why planning can’t go ahead, I really don’t think Brighton will see a lot of refusals going ahead.
Yet another modern slum in an over congested area with very few facilities and zero parking places. The planners should try to understand that very few people live without cars nowadays. Where are these cars supposed to go?
This most certainly is a blot on the landscape, a totally incongruous overdevelopment in one of the most congested areas of Hove. Virtually everyone has a car nowadays, where are these cars supposed to end up? it is already an absolute nightmare trying to park anywhere in this vicinity. Planners themselves need to relocate to the real world.
Brighton has one of the lowest car ownership rates in the country, according to census data at 37% of people owning one.
37% of people NOT owning one, I should say.
This is over development on a massive scale in one of the most congested areas in Hove. Virtually everyone nowadays has a car, where on earth are these cars supposed to end up? It is already close to impossible to find a parking space anywhere in this vicinity. Where are all the shops, services, doctors ,dentists, etc, that would be required to support these additional inhabitants? The planners themselves need to relocate to the real world and consider all these things.
All the dentists shops ect ect, about 10 mins walk south, or a supermarket just around the corner. Density and lack of parking is not a bad thing and will lead to the buses being busier, which in turn will lead to a more frequent service, simple supply and demand. Blatchington road and George Street have pretty much everything needed for most people, most days of the week.
Equally, if you live in central Hove, around the corner from a train station and 15 mins on a bus from the city centre, a car isn’t exactly needed by most people. I know that fact might blow a lot of minds in Hove, but public transport, walking and cycling won’t kill you…
yes, that’s the perfect justification for not needing a car, however, most people have one because it is so massively convenient
Decent roads would solve the noise created by buses smashing into the pot holes.
The great tale over all these social housing property’s will make Brighton and hove like the London suburbs or Tottenham ! Will most likely
Be going to people not
Born here in Brighton sadly
A substantial project to help reduce the waiting lists for desperately needed council housing, and all you can hear is the moaning! Here’s an idea, when it’s built, let’s ask the residents of these modern apartments whether they consider it a slum. I’m pretty sure they’ll find it a vast improvement on the poorly-maintained and exorbitant private rentals they’re in now.
Building contractors will be rubbing their hands in delight.
Let’s bet on the cost over run.
£50m is mine.
Parking is a must, surely in that area.
Can’t expect to House all those People and not given space to park.
I thought that Car Workshop by Kwik-fit was also going to be Flats, everywhere you look it’s Blocks of Flats squashed i.
Like the new Cancer Unit at RSCH said it was doing Car Spaces-now changed it mind-yet all going ahead.
So with all of these new homes, has there been more capacity created in NHS services including hospital beds, GP surgeries? More LA school place/teaching capacity? More Police and Fire service capacity? More cellular data capacity? Or is all of this demand going to be squeezed into the existing broken systems?
I was under the impression that all housing is affordable and certainly needs to be. Definitely not the right term.
I think we need to normalise whenever we talk about “affordable” housing, we clarify which one of the many forms of affordable we are talking/reporting about. Social rent, LHA-based Rent, Living Rent, Shared Ownership, Rent to Buy, DMS, Community-led Housing, Co-Living, Key Worker housing, and Intermediate are but a few!