A planning inspector has urged Brighton and Hove City Council “to leave no stone unturned” to address its housing shortage.
Laura Graham has been examining the council’s draft City Plan – its blueprint for building and development over the next 17 years.
In a letter today (Friday 13 December) she urged planners to look at more sites on the “urban fringe” like Toads Hole Valley.
Miss Graham said that developers should be able to build above the cliff height at Brighton Marina.
And that the council should rigorously reassess its policy of preventing shops, offices and other employment space from being given over to housing.
She said: “I recognise that there are significant constraints to providing land for development and that there are competing priorities for any land which may be available.
“However, given the significant shortfall in meeting housing needs, it is important that the council rigorously assesses all opportunities to meet that need.”
Miss Graham wrote to the council in July when she said that the analysis of urban fringe sites “identifies perceived constraints but includes no analysis of whether such constraints could be satisfactorily overcome and what the residual adverse impacts of developing some of the less constrained sites would be”.
In her letter today she said: “The site at Toads Hole Valley, which is proposed for development, suffers from some of the same constraints that are said to affect other sites, including its proximity to the (South Downs) National Park.
“However, the more positive approach taken towards development on this site contrasts with the negative approach taken to other sites.
“The overall impression given is that the starting point for analysis of these sites has been the desire to resist development.”
This, she said, was at odds with the legal requirement that the plan should be positively prepared.
Miss Graham has not yet completed her report on the City Plan. She has written to the council to give it a chance to address her concerns before she decides whether the plan is sound.
If she backs the plan, it will be easier for the council to ensure that developers and landowners have to stick to the policies set out in the plan.
The plan is intended to balance a number of competing needs. These include the need for enough new homes, places where local people can shop, work and study – and a desire to protect parks and open spaces.
The council estimates that 16,000 to 20,000 new homes need to be built by 2030 but the City Plan identifies sites for only 11,300.
1. Allowing Sussex University to increase its student numbers by a further 5,000 means losing not just council tax where they live, but the family housing and larger flats they will live in – the university only provides first year accommodation. In view of the Inspector’s comments this needs to be faced up to and fast.
2. The owners of the Sackville Trading Estate in Hove have a planning consent they are not using, but have renewed. They have in the last year bought up the land south of it along the north side of the tracks where the car pound, etc are. Sadly, BHCC refuse to consider removing designation of that land for a waste transfer station. when the Waste Local Plan is renewed in 2015, they are determined to keep this land for that purpose. Doing so compromises redevelopment of the area around it and in any case no transfer station can be built unless the landowner says so.
The City Plan should be reworked to allow a considerable relaxation of the DA6 employment zone requirement and a consideration of how Leighton Road depot could become a waste transfer station and how the poor quality council housing in Sheridan Terrace close to that Leighton Road depot could over the next 10-20 years become part of the depot – perhaps providing a sales point for the recyclables like wood and household things on the other side of the tracks to a Leighton Road waste transfer station.
1. Allowing Sussex University to increase its student numbers by a further 5,000 means losing not just council tax where they live, but the family housing and larger flats they will live in – the university only provides first year accommodation. In view of the Inspector’s comments this needs to be faced up to and fast.
2. The owners of the Sackville Trading Estate in Hove have a planning consent they are not using, but have renewed. They have in the last year bought up the land south of it along the north side of the tracks where the car pound, etc are. Sadly, BHCC refuse to consider removing designation of that land for a waste transfer station. when the Waste Local Plan is renewed in 2015, they are determined to keep this land for that purpose. Doing so compromises redevelopment of the area around it and in any case no transfer station can be built unless the landowner says so.
The City Plan should be reworked to allow a considerable relaxation of the DA6 employment zone requirement and a consideration of how Leighton Road depot could become a waste transfer station and how the poor quality council housing in Sheridan Terrace close to that Leighton Road depot could over the next 10-20 years become part of the depot – perhaps providing a sales point for the recyclables like wood and household things on the other side of the tracks to a Leighton Road waste transfer station.
Totally agree with the Inspector’s comment that “the overall impression given is that the starting point for analysis of these sites has been the desire to resist development.”. This is the experience for ALL property developers in the City too.
There are so many opportunities on brownfield sites that the Council refuse. The fact is that Brighton & Hove Planning department resist change. It is not an “urban myth” – this is the experience of almost everyone in the construction / development industry working in Brighton.
The Planning department urgently needs a radical shake up. i.e. top-down management change.
Totally agree with the Inspector’s comment that “the overall impression given is that the starting point for analysis of these sites has been the desire to resist development.”. This is the experience for ALL property developers in the City too.
There are so many opportunities on brownfield sites that the Council refuse. The fact is that Brighton & Hove Planning department resist change. It is not an “urban myth” – this is the experience of almost everyone in the construction / development industry working in Brighton.
The Planning department urgently needs a radical shake up. i.e. top-down management change.
It is a big issues now ,population growing but need more accomandation .
Student will be more within 2 years time in Brighton and hove.
Our land is very small otherwise we could build more houses but all empty property must be used .
We have resources but no engage also we must act.
We Can make different if we work togather.
It is a big issues now ,population growing but need more accomandation .
Student will be more within 2 years time in Brighton and hove.
Our land is very small otherwise we could build more houses but all empty property must be used .
We have resources but no engage also we must act.
We Can make different if we work togather.
Brighton fought hard for its City status and deservingly got it in October 2004 and since then the city has, and continues, to grow. The council needs to face up to the challenges that city status brings, which means thinking positively and pro-actively, allowing new homes, not going into its shell and refusing development on brownfield and other potential sites within the city limits. The council, or at least some members, or officers, within the council, are surreptitiously talking to, and actively encouraging developers to take their housing numbers in other areas, indeed counties. The areas identified are miles away from Brighton, on greenfield, sensitive sites, with no rail links, no infrastructure, where cars will be required for commuting, shopping and leisure pursuits, hardly sustainable or the preferred policy of a Green Council?
Brighton fought hard for its City status and deservingly got it in October 2004 and since then the city has, and continues, to grow. The council needs to face up to the challenges that city status brings, which means thinking positively and pro-actively, allowing new homes, not going into its shell and refusing development on brownfield and other potential sites within the city limits. The council, or at least some members, or officers, within the council, are surreptitiously talking to, and actively encouraging developers to take their housing numbers in other areas, indeed counties. The areas identified are miles away from Brighton, on greenfield, sensitive sites, with no rail links, no infrastructure, where cars will be required for commuting, shopping and leisure pursuits, hardly sustainable or the preferred policy of a Green Council?