A community is banding together to oppose plans for a 12-storey block of co-living units.
Brighton Greenway Residents’ Association is concerned about the impact of the proposed block of 336 flats and commercial space at the Albany House and St James House sites at 49 and 51 New England Street, Brighton.
The sites are currently home to Brewers Decorator Centre the Samurai Martial Arts Centre and Mind.
Developer Watkin Jones submitted the planning application for Greenline Studios to Brighton and Hove City Council at the end of April, after carrying out a series of public events.
These included an exhibition at the Black and Minority Ethnic Community Partnership Centre in Fleet Street, attended by 36 people, including an unnamed West Hill and North Laine ward councillor, and representatives of the Brighton Greenway Residents’ Association.
Watkin Jones representatives also made a presentation to the London Road Area Local Action Team and have met with Friends of Brighton Greenway, Brighton Greenway Residents’ Association, and the area’s councillors.
Residents’ association chair Jack Zeniewski said people living beside the site in Brighton Greenway are concerned there are no conventional homes proposed for the development.
He said: “There is no family housing and no two or three-bedroom units. All 336 rooms are single-occupancy studios.
“Some 93 per cent of them are below the council’s own 25 square metre minimum size guidance for co-living.”
The residents are also concerned about the lack of affordable housing, with predicted rents being £1,450 to £1,550 per month.
They are worried about potential loss of light as Watkin Jones’ report shows 11 out of the 28 rooms facing the development on Stroudley Road would lose light, some of them by more than 60 per cent.
In response, the association launched the Save Brighton Greenway campaign.
Mr Zeniewski said: “This is not an objection to development on this site. It is an objection to this development.
“A 12-storey co-living block with no family homes, no affordable housing and a proposed Section 106 contribution of one pound is not the answer to Brighton’s housing needs.
“The developer’s own figures show serious daylight harm to neighbouring homes, and Brighton Greenway, one of London Road’s few green spaces, risks being overshadowed and enclosed.
“Brighton needs genuine homes, not what are effectively 336 hotel rooms with tenancy agreements.”
The financial viability statement for Watkin Jones by DS2 LLP describes co-living as a “more recent investment concept”.
On the developer’s return, the statement said: “The co-living model is a relatively untested product and therefore the applicant is carrying considerable risk in delivering the scheme.
“Should the applicant be unable to let the units, and unlike traditional Build to Rent products, there is no exit option to sell the units individually, given that the design does not provide standard self-contained units.
“The only theoretical exit given the design is for student housing.”
The financial viability document states the developer contribution of £1 is yet to be agreed and may be updated in due course.
A community infrastructure levy (CIL) payment is estimated of £2.2 million.
There are currently 18 public comments about the application published on the council website, 15 against and two supporting, with one classed as neutral.
An objector whose details are removed on the council website said: “I’m only objecting to the type of housing. I am due family housing.
“Families need homes not more alarming, atomised studio and one-bedroom apartments.”
A supporter whose details are also redacted, said: “I strongly support this application. The city desperately needs new homes which this development will bring forward.”
If the only fallback is student housing, that kind of tells you everything. With both universities struggling and Sussex cutting staff, another huge block of student-style rooms doesn’t really sound like the best idea.
I strongly object to this proposed co-living development.
While Brighton & Hove undoubtedly needs more housing, this scheme appears to prioritise maximising density and developer profit over creating a sustainable, balanced and liveable community. Co-living developments are often presented as an innovative solution to the housing crisis, but in reality they can deliver very small living spaces while failing to address the city’s urgent need for genuinely affordable family housing.
The scale and intensity of this development would have a significant impact on existing residents. Concerns regarding increased pressure on local infrastructure, public transport, GP services, parking, waste collection and community facilities have not been adequately addressed. Existing residents are already experiencing the effects of overdevelopment across the city and should not be expected to absorb further strain without clear evidence that local services can cope.
I am also concerned about the impact on the character of the area. A large co-living block risks creating a transient population with limited integration into the established neighbourhood. Strong communities are built through long-term residents, families and mixed housing provision, not through developments that resemble institutional accommodation with minimal private living space.
The proposal appears to represent overdevelopment of the site. The height, scale and massing would be out of keeping with surrounding properties and could result in loss of privacy, overshadowing and a reduction in residential amenity for neighbouring homes. Similar concerns have been raised in previous high-density developments across Brighton & Hove where residents have objected to excessive scale, overdevelopment and the erosion of community character.
It sounds very similar to what was proposed in Melbourne St several years ago, and that hasn’t been built. We need proper homes for families not this style of accommodation.
Very true, been deralic for years, in that time they could have built homes that are needed for everyone that needs one, with affordable rent.
Like £750 per month, instead of double that that no one can afford, even those on £25,000 a year.
This Student type of housing could be used to replace HMO’s thereby freeing up a large number of houses, it’s not complicated just stop handing out permits for HMO conversions.
“Could” is doing a lot of work there. There’s nothing in this application that turns a single HMO back into a family home. Just makes one big bedsit beside them.
Not a lot of work needed, the “mods” done to large houses converted to HMOs are not exactly quality, seem if you read further down similar ideas are popping up. Stop future HMOs and get the “student” blocks filled up,
It’s not just families that need housing. To me this seems a good idea, and my nephew was in this type of accommodation in Switzerland. There are also other advantages to living in a studio, as it’s cheaper to run. One of my friends downsized to a studio, and he’s quite happy with it. We bleat on about creating housing, but oppose it when it comes to the crunch.
I agree with that, but it’s the cost of these shoe boxes that I’m opposed to.
Councils need to start looking at the people that People that are are occupying 3/4 Bed homes that they no longer need.
Should be made to downsize.
But I also think that people who live alone and need a 1 bed place, they are also needed instead of HMO to greedy landlords that get £3,000 for a 8 Bed hous.
There are Student places in Hollingdean the landlord is trying to get students in as maybe aren’t needed in the City-they are 1 beds and should be letting at affordable rent to the general public.
Why do we keep using the developers marketing terms? Homes at high prices under minimum size guidelines with less light than they should have are called slums, not “co living studios”.
I’ve been reading the North Laine Runner book recently, and there’s quite a few mentions in that of certain streets that once had 1000+ living there in obviously very cramped conditions. It seems that we are now viewing that as some sort of progressive housing model.
Imagine small, cramped , mentally-destructive, North Koreanesqe prison cells for would be tenants, whose only crime is needing a help-in hand and a place to call home.
Yes, the tenant would be , so happy to finally have a home, but give it a few weeks after the gloss wears off, and these cages, masquerading as “homes” will get alot smaller mentally.
Personally, as part of the councils service charge, they should have a dedicated”unlifeing” unit standing by, as alot of overdoses and tragic unlifeings are going to happen in these “homes.”