Councillors raised concerns about the lack of affordable housing in a block of nine flats as they granted planning permission for the £5 million scheme.
Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee voted to approve the plan for flats at 95 Marine Drive, Rottingdean, yesterday (Wednesday 4 March) by seven votes to three.
The application, which is still subject to a legal agreement being finalised, would mean the demolition of a detached house.
The house would be replaced by a four-storey block containing seven two-bedroom flats and two three-bedroom flats.
Neighbours Roger Hanlon and Danny Tobin, who live behind the coast road house, spoke against the application in a meeting at Hove Town Hall.
Mr Hanlon said: “From all points of view, this proposed building is completely overwhelming.
“We’ve always realised and understood the likelihood of development behind us. What is hoped for is a design of reasonable proportions.”
Mr Tobin said: “Giving permission for these plans will be normalising this kind of planning of large-scale multiple occupancy (buildings), not based on the size and dimensions of the existing building.”
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Bridget Fishleigh said that the application did not comply with the policies set out in either the Rottingdean Plan or Brighton and Hove City Council’s City Plan.
Councillor Fishleigh raised concerns that there would be no affordable housing element to the scheme.
She said: “What is the point of having planning policies if you allow developers to ignore them.
“This application is contrary to the affordable housing policy in our city’s plan and there will be a viability assessment but the affordable (housing) should be built in right at the start.”
The plans were originally by Poole-based Fortitudo but the project has been taken over by Bournemouth-based Shamrock Land Developments Limited.
Company director Rory Ellacott, 24, said that, although the scheme could not support affordable housing, this did not mean that it was not a viable development.
Mr Ellacott said: “A viability appraisal has been prepared by a chartered surveyor and that appraisal has been independently reviewed by the district valuer on behalf of the council who agrees that the scheme cannot support policy-compliant affordable housing at this time.
“A viability review mechanism has been agreed to ensure, should circumstances improve, additional contributions can be secured.”
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald voted against the scheme, saying that it was “wide, ugly and boring”.
She said: “There’s no affordable (housing). There’s overlooking for the neighbours, especially at the back.
“In 2017 there was (a plan for) a three-storey building with four flats. I think this is an overdevelopment.”
Green councillor Sue Shanks also voted against the scheme, raising concerns about the lack of an affordable element.
She said: “I have this thing with affordable housing. I think if you can’t build sustainably nine homes, then you just have to go up.
“I understand the arguments on affordable housing. I just don’t agree with them.”
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey voted against the application. He said: “It makes a nonsense of the Rottingdean Neighbourhood Plan.
“Also, the buildings on either side pre-date the neighbourhood plan so this could be the thin end of the wedge so I’ll be voting against it.
Labour councillor Joy Robinson said that the proposed design looked similar to the design of the buildings on either side – and she voted in favour.
She said: “I’m not happy with the situation regarding affordable housing but I understand the reasons why.
“Where we are in this development is getting eight more properties than we currently have.”
what is the Council position on the Local plan? Is it just a tick box exercise or does it have support and should the Couuncil enforce it or change it so residents feel that there is accountability and transparency?
This development flies in the face of local democracy and the Council should be clear on what they support.
It’s a good question; I think you have to consider that they are not absolute rules. In practice, that means policies like affordable housing targets are applied where they are viable. Doesn’t feel great though, does it?
Nine flats = £5 million ???
As ever, rules and guidelines etc only apply when it suits, but what is wrong with the existing building?
Probably nothing wrong with the existing building, but that isn’t a valid planning reason for an objection.
I never suggested it was, I was just wondering why they are getting rid of it.
It’s a really good question, I’m not sure either. Considering the ROI would be something like 3% I can’t imagine this being build to rent, so I’d wager it’d be based on long-term investment or selling the units in the £600-700k range each as investment units.
The Government should change the rules so that more affordable and social rent homes can be built as part of developments generally. Otherwise, how can this Council or others get more housing of this type?
I assume you mean how the council or others can get more social rent homes, and I think you hit the nail on the head; it needs to be a government thing that pushes it forward or at least, when the mayorality is established, there’s an opportunity there too.
When there is an elected mayor it just adds another level of bureaucracy. These plans should be rejected as an overdevelopment in the wrong place, creating a traffic hazard and no social housing provision. Against the local plan and detrimental to the community. The only benefit is to the pockets of the developer!
That’s not really true in the context of local governance – mayoral authorities generally consolidate powers rather than adding extra bureaucracy.
And unfortunately, viability assessments carry a lot of weight in planning decisions. The Local Plan is the starting point for decisions, but it isn’t absolute, and schemes can still be approved if there are material considerations such as viability.
I completely understand why people find that frustrating, though…
Benjamin,
The issue isn’t that people don’t understand the planning framework — it’s that viability assessments are increasingly used as a loophole to bypass policies that were meant to secure affordable housing in the first place.
If the Local Plan sets clear expectations but developments can routinely avoid them by claiming schemes are “not viable”, then residents are right to question how meaningful those policies actually are. Otherwise the policy exists on paper while, in practice, it’s negotiated away.
That’s why people see a gap between what the planning system promises communities and what actually gets approved.