People will be asked for their views on housing need in Brighton and Hove when a public consultation on the new “City Plan” begins in July.
Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet approved moving forward with the process of creating a new set of planning policies until 2041.
When the cabinet met at Hove Town Hall on Thursday (14 May), Labour councillor Alan Robins asked whether the new City Plan would add to the existing City Plan or effectively “rip up” the previous policies.
The Labour deputy leader of the council, Jacob Taylor, said that the council was required to keep its strategic plan updated and up to date.
The next City Plan is expected to follow a new government framework which requires councils to create plans over 30 months, incorporating changes in national law and policy and reflecting local priorities.
Councillor Taylor said: “Do we want to introduce a principal residence policy for certain buildings and can we do that legally? We’ll have to explore that through the process.
“Are there certain sites that were previously occupied, whether they’re former office blocks or otherwise, that now might want to be allocated as housing but previously were not in the old plan.
“This is not about ripping up an old plan and doing something completely different.”
Ideas already floated by councillors in the past year include the principal residence policy mentioned by Councillor Taylor. The aim would be to prevent new builds being sold as second homes or left as empty investments.
Other proposals include introducing policies to regulate short-term holiday lets.
Councillor Taylor said that the council could look again at its policies on shared houses, known as HMOs (houses in multiple occupation).
The current City Plan was approved in two parts. When part two was voted through in 2022, it introduced new policies restricting the number of shared houses across wider neighbourhood areas.
It was also intended to prevent three shared houses in a row and two shared houses from sandwiching a family home.
Existing restrictions on the number of HMOs within 50 metres of another in five electoral wards remained in place.
Controversial parts of City Plan Part Two included allocating housing on “urban fringe” sites such as Benfield Valley and the butterfly bank at Swanborough Drive, in Whitehawk.
Labour councillor Jacob Allen, a former deputy chair of the council’s Planning Committee and an associate member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, said that these strategic plans were “the most important document a council can have”.
He said that such plans would give the Planning Committee the “tools needed” to represent residents’ views and the city’s needs.
Councillor Allen said: “Not having an up-to-date and sound local plan is really devastating for a council.
“I’ve done work in Arun, along the coast from us, where developers just have free rein in terms of what they go for, and the inspector has very little choice but to uphold it even when planning committees are quite firm in their decision-making.”
Some 700 people responded to an initial consultation on key issues from November 2024 to January 2025, suggesting themes and ideas to focus as the City Plan takes shape.
- Homes for everyone
- Sustainability and climate change
- A diverse and sustainable city economy
- Design and place-making
- Culture and tourism
- Healthy city and communities
- Biodiversity and green infrastructure
- Transport and infrastructure
The council has been awarded £108,000 by the government to help fund work on the new plan.
It is due to formally give notice of its intention to begin work on the plan by Tuesday 23 June and to carry out a scoping consultation from mid-July to September.
A more in-depth six-week consultation will take place from July to September next year once the council puts together the contents and evidence that are expected to form the future plan.
A finalised plan is due to go before the council’s cabinet in April 2028 and a meeting of the full council a month later before a final eight-week public consultation in the summer of that year.
The final steps are for a government minister, the Secretary of State, to sign off the plan and then for the council to adopt it formally in March 2029.
This and previous councils have raided Hove’s land bank over the last decade or so without a thought for the residents.
Here’s an idea
It seems pretty selfish that Hove has two parks close together..The Rec and Hove Park.
Let’s build tower blocks on one and keep the other.
Instead of a consultation to decide which park to keep ( because they are always ignored ) it could be decided on a flip of a coin..or best of three.
Any empty flat/ house should be put to a rental auction unless a valid reason given. That way the owner doesn’t loose their property but neither does society. The only people able to bid would be council waiting list. Temporary lease of 5 years. If the owner is mortgaged, bids above that monthly payment if not mortgaged then no bottom to the bid.
The best news I’ve heard in a long time.
Give these councillors a medal.
And “BUILD HOMES FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN!”
It’s something I feel very strongly about, coz everything flows from good and affordable housing, I believe.
Think about it, it ain’t Rocket Science
When I first arrived in Brighton, I was shocked at the amount of derelict buildings that could be made into flats and houses for residents of our city to live in.
But as Soence said, will the public consultation be acted upon?
*Spence
How about knocking down that large, ugly concrete building in Church Road and building flats? Nothing useful seems to come out of there.
YES!
That’s the first building I noticed when I moved here.
The uk population growth is primarily from migration. Why do we keep allowing such high levels of migration when we don’t have the space? Reduce migration and we can stop concreting over the UK.
Agreed. The first thing the govt could do is remove all incentives for coming here including access to UK benefits and free NHS healthcare. The UK birth rate itself is falling.
On the other hand, we don’t have the space due to the lack of social housing. Right to buy didn’t help but council houses being demolished and replaced by private housing hasn’t either.
Without migration, there will be fewer working-age people to fund your pension when you retire.
Reflect upon that (and more) as you vote for Nigel or tie-wrap a Temu flag to a lamppost.
Good, then we can address the birthrate rather than replace us all with people who can’t follow basic rule of law.
Official data shows that there are 440K migrants unemployed and a further 1.25 million working age migrants classified as being out of work.You are living in your own bubble.
The Brighton “In-Betweener” Vent: A City Eating Its Own
Is anyone else in Brighton & Hove feeling like they’re being erased in real-time?
I’m talking to the “In-Betweeners.” We aren’t the weekend tourists, and we aren’t the brand-new arrivals. We’ve been here 25+ years. We’ve paid our taxes, raised our kids, and watched this city evolve—only to find out that the city doesn’t actually have a place for us anymore.
The housing “crisis” isn’t just a crisis; it’s a systematic eviction of the people who actually make Brighton work.
The “Affordable” Housing Lie
Developers and the Council are currently patting themselves on the back for “affordable” rents that are sitting at £1,800 a month. Since when is £1,800 affordable? To even get a look at these properties, they’re expecting key workers—the nurses, teachers, and responders—to be earning over £44,000 a year.
If you’re a local worker on a normal salary, you’re basically told to “get lost.” You’re too “rich” for the social housing that doesn’t exist (with a waitlist that feels like it’s decades long) and too “poor” for the developer-led “affordable” traps. We are stuck in the middle, and the middle is disappearing.
The May 1st Panic: Section 21 Mass Evictions
And now, look at the chaos hitting us right now. Because Section 21 “no-fault” evictions are being banned this May 1st, landlords across Brighton are panicking. We are seeing hundreds of families being served notice this month so landlords can clear them out before the new laws kick in. It’s a literal race to the bottom. Families who have rented the same house for a decade are being uprooted in a final “cleansing” of the rental market just so landlords can hike the rent or sell up. Where are we all supposed to go? We’re being shoved out with our children while the city is hollowed out.
Empty Schools, Empty Streets
They are literally closing the heart of our communities. Look at St Bartholomew’s and St Peter’s—already gone. Now, the oldest school in the city, Middle Street Primary, is on the chopping block with a final decision due this month.
Why aren’t there enough kids? Because you’ve evicted the parents! You can’t have a school in the Lanes if nobody under the age of 50 can afford to live within three miles of it. We’ve turned family homes into Airbnbs and luxury flats, and then the Council acts shocked when the schools go into a deficit.
The War on Care
It’s not just the young; it’s our most vulnerable. The Council is currently moving to close down residential homes and day centers like Wellington House to save £400,000—a drop in the ocean of a billion-pound budget. For the adults with learning disabilities who use that center, it is their only social life and their only respite.
And then there’s the shortage of skilled care workers. Of course there’s a shortage! A care worker can’t pay £1,800 a month for a flat. We are pricing out the very people who keep our parents and vulnerable neighbors safe.
The Bottom Line
The Council talks about a “Fairer Brighton & Hove,” but the literal reality is that if you’ve lived here for 25+ years and you aren’t a property developer or a millionaire, you’re being managed out of your own city.
It is absolutely ridiculous. We are losing our homes to the May 1st panic, our schools to the housing costs, and our care system to “efficiency” cuts.
Who is this city actually for anymore? Because it certainly isn’t for us.
An excellent post. It’s happening all over the country.
No because my parents thought me how money works so I purchased a property instead of rented one because the generation before me decided the best way to make money was to invest in property jack up prices and rip off my generation
Convert all the empty floors above businesses and shops. Cheaper, quicker, infrastructure already there and helps local shops and businesses.
Any private block with more than 10% flats vacant after the first year needs to let these flats at social housing rents to social housing tenants. In addition to any percentage already built as ‘affordable housing’ in the block.
Extra tax on any non-primary residence or property empty other than for Probate reasons. The Marina in particular is like a ghost town in winter.
Conversion isn’t always the cheapest option. The infrastructure – utilities etc – aren’t the same standards as they are for offices and need different configuration.
Living above a shop or business may not always be conducice. Nor is living in a flat on say North Street with its traffic and shouting and bother from late night revelers.
Social houng providers don’t always want every flat / house built as part of a scheme. They find it hard to manage small numbers of homes in disparete locations.
There are already extra taxes on vacant homes – double council tax for example. If you believe a home meets the requirements you can always email the council tax team for them to investigate.
Brighton and Hove is already the second most densely populated city in the UK according to this list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
Given this, why is there such a strong push to increase housing density even further by building more homes?
The city’s infrastructure and public services are already under significant strain. The council already struggles with pressures on transport, parking, GP services, schools, waste collection, and road maintenance. Adding large numbers of new homes without matching investment in infrastructure risks placing even greater pressure on residents’ quality of life.
There also needs to be greater consideration of the city’s limited space, environmental impact, and the character of local communities. Development should be balanced and sustainable, rather than simply focused on increasing housing numbers at any cost.
At the same time, it is unrealistic to expect every person who wants to live in Brighton and Hove to be able to do so. Many other nearby towns and cities across Sussex have more available space for expansion and could benefit from investment, regeneration, and improved transport links. Encouraging growth across the wider region would help reduce pressure on Brighton while still supporting housing needs and economic development.
The post contradicts itself. By definition by having higher density, it brings costs down for all council service as more people are paying council tax. Flats especially help things like transport, waste, road maintenance become cheaper.
If you had 100 detached houses Vs 100 terraced or a block of 100 flats think about that in terms of space and you’ll start to get the picture. So this idea of destroying small towns and concreting over farmland instead of building in city’s is absolute nonsense
As long as you’re alright Jack, that’s the main thing.
Just shift the housebuilding to somewhere else that doesn’t affect me.
The very definition of Nimbyism
Completely agree.
I didn’t realise we were one of the most densely populated places but it makes sense.
There have to be a realistic limit to what the local infrastructure can support. The council cannot run the city as it is. More housing makes all these issues worse.
Rather than forcing more and more development into an already crowded city, focus on investing in surrounding towns.
There are underutilised parcels of land within central Hove, typically located to the rear of properties with larger gardens or garage blocks. These areas are often accessible via easements running alongside residential buildings. The plan should identify such opportunities, as—when considered collectively—they have the potential to accommodate small-scale residential developments, delivering new homes without requiring significant additional infrastructure.
build in best addresses to punish rich people who own – eg dyke road – lets devalue their stuff!
I feel that this work is best placed within the new strategy authority, later on down the line, being very much an issue of the region, not just Brighton.