A planning appeal began for the £280m Brighton gasworks project with 495 homes after the council rejected it.
The final decision rests with Angela Rayner, the Secretary of State for Housing. Dominic Young, the planning inspector, will advise the Secretary after reviewing arguments related to the scheme’s effects. These discussions will cover local character, heritage, and living conditions.
James Maurici, representing St William, argues that brownfield sites should be redeveloped. He emphasizes that this project revitalizes a “degraded” gasworks, providing many new homes, including affordable options. Despite these benefits, the project has faced local objections.
According to Maurici, the council’s planners initially supported the project, but their advice was later overturned by council members. He maintains that the scheme will transform a derelict site, creating nearly 500 homes and 200 jobs. Brighton faces a need for almost 2,500 homes annually, yet has only built an average of 522 since 2010.
The council acknowledges the housing need and had earmarked the site. However, they considered it suitable for 340 homes, while this project proposes 495. St William argues that the scheme delivers a promised transformation outlined in the local plan since 2005.
St William is seeking grant money to fund 40% of the affordable homes, which they consider a “significant benefit.” The addition of new commercial space is projected to create up to 195 jobs. This would increase employment in a deprived area, further bolstering the project’s value.
Maurici points out that most official advisors did not object to the plan, with only one of many council departments raising concerns. Key groups like Historic England also raised no objections. He asserts that these benefits justify granting permission for the development, as it provides much-needed housing and economic opportunity.
The report concludes that housing benefits outweigh any potential harms. National policy favors the approval of brownfield sites unless there is “substantial harm,” further supporting this scheme. Ultimately, national policy aligns favorably with this development project.
The council cited two main reasons for refusal, while the Brighton Gasworks Coalition raised several other issues. Maurici has accused the council of “case creep,” suggesting that they added complaints to obstruct the appeal and prevent the project from moving forward.
The scheme underwent multiple design changes, overseen by council officers. These changes ensured efficient use of the brownfield site and limited effects on the national park. The current design aims to enhance the surrounding area, aligning with the government’s objective of building many homes.
Brighton must make the best use of its available land, constrained by the sea on one side and a national park on the other. The changes incorporated into the scheme are deemed acceptable and will enhance the local landscape. This approach is essential for meeting housing needs within the existing constraints.
The site is not within a conservation area and contains no listed buildings. Although there is a flint wall, its presence is not considered a valid reason for refusal, as Historic England raised no objections. The council’s current allegation of harm to 53 assets is seen as unreasonable due to the increase in the number of identified harms during the process.
The development presents no harm to Kemp Town or East Cliff. While there is low harm to the French Convalescent Home, some harm does affect Marine Gate, although enhancements offset this negative impact. The loss of the flint wall is considered to cause harm, but these walls are common throughout Brighton.
The council’s concerns primarily focus on future residents and claims of inadequate living conditions, which Maurici disputes. He argues that living conditions are perfectly adequate. Existing residents will be looking at an attractive, developed area, resulting in no unacceptable impacts.
New residents will enjoy dual aspect units, and all apartments offer views of the public space. Some units will also feature sea or South Downs views. Usable amenity space is provided, and privacy levels are deemed sufficient for all residents. The sense of enclosure is typical for an urban setting.
The site has undergone thorough investigation for contamination, and the risks are considered manageable. No objections were raised by relevant agencies or environmental health officials. Granting permission is deemed the correct decision. The council’s approach is considered unreasonable.
Maurici requests that the Secretary of State approve the appeal because the government aims to limit overturned recommendations, particularly for allocated sites. The government is also concerned about delays, and this appeal directly impacts the government’s housing objectives. He concludes that the council has caused unneeded and avoidable costs.
The appeal continues.