An eight-day public inquiry to determine the future of proposals to build nearly 500 homes on the land next to the A259 near Brighton Marina opened this morning.
Both the scheme’s developer St William and Brighton and Hove City Council made their arguments to planning inspector Dominic Young.
James Maurici, representing St William, who officially appealed against the refusal in October, took a swing at the council for its position and said there was no “reasonable” basis for the local authority to reject the proposals.
The inquiry heard the developer has decided to apply for costs from the council.
Mr Maurici said the plans, which attracted over 1,700 objections from residents, will deliver “significant and substantial benefits”, will create jobs and will make “best use of suitable brownfield land, remediating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated land”.
He added that the 495 homes would be a “major contribution to the council’s existing shortfall” in housing, which he described as “lamentable”.
“Regrettably, but not surprisingly, the scheme generated much local objection,” he said.
“Such opposition is, as you will know sir, par for the course in planning these days for any major redevelopment.
“In the face of local opposition members decided to overturn the good advice of their officers and to refuse planning permission.”
What did plans involve?
St William spent more than four years on its proposals which would include 11 blocks of flats up to 12 storeys high.
Plans also included 2,791 square metres of commercial floor space at ground floor level and a “green link” between Marina Way and Roedean Road.
Councillors voted seven to three against the scheme over concerns it would be too big and cramped, would harm the area’s historic heritage and contained too few family homes.
This went against the recommendation of planning officers.
There were also fears from residents over contamination and toxic chemicals released from the site during the building process.
Council accused of being ‘unreasonable’
Mr Maurici accused the council of having to “scrabble around” in the preparation of its case and said there was “nothing” in concerns about the development’s density, the living conditions of future residents and the impact on heritage assets.
He said the site is not in a conservation area, Historic England did not object to the scheme and that of the 17 departments within the council and over 20 statutory consultees only the UK Health Security Agency formally objected to the plans.
“There is no reasonable basis for the council to have refused permission in this case,” said Mr Maurici.
“Its approach, and the extensive case creep since and obstruction thereafter, are entirely unreasonable.
“This is the type of case the costs jurisdiction was made for.”
Council hits back
But the council defended its stance, saying the scheme would be a “harmful overdevelopment” which “falls short both in design and amenity terms and which inter alia gives rise to a strong reason in heritage terms to refuse it”.
Celina Colquhoun, representing the council, hit back at St William and claimed the developer has “at points chosen to take an unfortunately aggressive approach” to the appeal in a number of its communications with the council.
She drew attention to the thousands of objections from residents, as well as objections from interested non statutory bodies such as Rottingdean Heritage, Kemp Town Society and Brighton and Hove Heritage.
She referenced the planning officer’s report to the planning committee which described the plans as being a “very dense scheme” which “would represent a major change to the townscape and visual amenity of the local area”.
She also highlighted the lack of affordable homes in the scheme.
Mr Maurici said that as matters stand the provision of any affordable housing is “unviable” but that grant funding will be sought to provide 40 per cent.
Ms Colquhoun said St William’s approach has been to “try to maximise the number of dwellings while seeking to downplay the real impact in heritage terms and to try to focus on individual elements close to the site”.
She said the “high density” development with tall buildings would not properly reflect the wider character of the area.
Ena Murphy, a planning expert with over 30 years of experience, was a witness for the council. She described the development as “cramped” with some buildings only having a gap of 40 metres between them.
She said the development would be “visually dominant” in the townscape and that the potential public benefits of the scheme would not outweigh the “significant” harms.
How long is the inquiry?
The inquiry is scheduled to end on March 28 and the Secretary of State for Housing has called the application in. This means the planning inspector will make a recommendation but the final decision will be made by the Secretary of State.
The inspector will usually make their recommendation within two months, after which the Secretary of State will confirm their decision.
The inquiry continues at Brighton Town Hall.
Source link
[Featured]
[Just In]
