Councillors granted planning permission for an £87 million scheme to build more than 200 council homes in Brighton at a meeting this afternoon (Wednesday 11 January).
But members of Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee said that they recognised some neighbours’ concerns that they were unaware of public consultation about the scheme.
The proposed buildings include blocks of flats up to eight storeys high and a row of eight semi-detached houses. Some 15 homes will be wheelchair accessible.
As well as 212 homes in total, the plans include a library, doctors’ surgery, pharmacy, café, youth services and shop, “3G” sports pitches, skate park and play areas.
The site – currently known as the Moulsecoomb Hub North – would also have some community space with rooms to rent.
Two objectors who live near the site, which is in Hodshrove Road and Hodshrove Lane, spoke out about the plans at Hove Town Hall today.
Maria Kinsey, of Hodshrove Road, said that neither she nor her neighbours knew anything about any of the public consultation in the past seven years while the council worked on the scheme.
She said: “I don’t feel like we’ve been consulted at all. There’s been an odd notice on a lamp post. When you first read it, it looks like it’s just a demolition.
“It doesn’t really correspond to what’s going on. If there was a leaflet drop, I didn’t get any leaflets. My neighbours didn’t.”
Ms Kinsey said that she had spoken to people from more than 100 homes along her road and none of them knew about the consultation meetings or the proposed scheme.
She knew people who had been to meetings about the project but they were from north Moulsecoomb and other areas but not the neighbourhood most directly affected.
Another resident, Adrian Hill, who did receive a leaflet last year, said that he feared that the centre of Moulsecoomb “will change negatively forever”.
He said: “The current traffic-free nature walk will become an overlooked, dark, dense car park. Other twittens will have their nature and views replaced by tall buildings.”
He said that he saw the “brochure” which made the car park look like a green area with trees drawn in using CGI (computer-generated imagery).
He said that the council’s plans and the new student block in nearby Moulsecoomb Way highlighted the need for more services in the area. It was among the 5 per cent most deprived neighbourhoods in the country.
The council’s agent, Guy Dixon, of Savills, said that the site would provide affordable council-owned and managed housing and community facilities.
Mr Dixon said that there were more than 4,500 households on Brighton and Hove’s housing waiting list and a further 1,800 in temporary homes.
He said: “These proposals seek to provide new affordable homes to address a clear need in the city. One hundred per cent of these homes will come forward as affordable housing for local people.”
He also said that the council had carried out three separate leaflet drops to 4,000 addresses in the area.
Councillors were told that the proposed community hub would be completed before two existing buildings – the Hillview Contact Centre and the 67 Centre – were demolished so services would not be transferred elsewhere.
Green councillor Sue Shanks said that “3G” artificial sports pitches were bad for biodiversity and she shared residents’ concerns about the effect of the construction process on their lives. But she backed the scheme because the council had to build more homes.
Councillor Shanks said: “In terms of consultation here, perhaps there are lessons we need to learn about developments on our estates where we have a lot of our existing housing which was built initially as social housing.
“It is our land and we want to build there but we do need to make sure we take residents with us.”
She suggested that an event should be held to explain what had been agreed and the building process that would follow.
Fellow Green councillor Marianna Ebel said that there were several large private schemes in her ward, Goldsmid, where no public consultation with neighbours had taken place and she understood residents’ frustrations.
She said: “I am pleased to see it is 100 per cent affordable and community facilities (are being) provided.
“There are quite a good number of cycle parking spaces. There will be people who are unhappy, and car parking spaces are never enough, but there is limited space.”
Councillor Ebel said that the site was hilly and the tall buildings had been designed in a way that took this into account.
Independent councillor Nick Childs said that the council would need to work hard to rebuild trust with the community.
He said: “I hear what the residents have said. On balance, this is a really rare opportunity for us as a city to provide badly needed, genuinely affordable social housing.
“It will provide a huge amount of housing and make a significant dent into our housing waiting list.”
Labour councillor Clare Moonan supported the plans but raised concerns about traffic, calling for a traffic management plan. She was also unhappy about the loss of one of the trees on the site.
She said: “This is ripe for a rat-run, notwithstanding the people who live on the site and are travelling to park.
“But there’s going to be people coming through the site to use the facilities or just to access Lewes Road by a slightly quicker route at rush hour.”
The committee unanimously voted to approve the application.
Labour councillor Daniel Yates, who represents Moulsecoomb and Bevendean ward, said that he had long been a supporter of the project. He left the council chamber while the plans were discussed, returning after the vote.
Conservative councillor Samer Bagaeen left the meeting altogether after being told that he could not vote, having stepped out and missed part of the presentation.
Councillor Bagaeen, who is also a professor of planning, said that he had read the presentation which was supplied in advance as well as the supporting report.
Green councillor Leo Littman, who chaired the meeting, said that the decision followed legal advice although councillors were not told the specific legal basis.
At least one other member of the committee, Councillor Childs, also left the chamber during the item but was not prevented from voting.
Thats £410,377+ per flat! That crazy…
Too many outdoor recreational facilities will be lost. It was so disappointing that none of the councillors asked questions about the loss of parkland, recreational facilities and playing fields. The developer and council confirmed they hadn’t thought about adding walking and cycling options nor the traffic problems; I’m worried that ratruns will be created and the buses delayed. The developer and council kept repeating the false claim it is a brownfield site, the majority is not brownfield; it is parkland and recreational land.
This decision was a failure on the people of Moulsecoomb. There were good alternatives that would have created 75% of the housing.
Who’s getting a backhander here? The cost is about 30% above what it should be, especially when you consider what size and quality these houses will be.
Interesting here that Daniel Yates excludes himself from the vote because he has been a long term supporter and yet Chair of ETS Elaine Hills who personally backs the Hanover LTN NEVER excludes herself from voting.
Also interesting .. Daniel Yates being such a staunch supporter of the project was living on Hodshrove road and I believed still was but someone said yesterday they thought he had moved now haha … maybe because the build will be torture for people living along here ? If he does still live here please correct me as it was a passing comment .
Hi Maria. I now live at the other end of the development site in Hillside ! Best wishes Daniel.
“We need more affordable housing!”
“But you can’t build it here!”
“Where do you suggest we build them?”
“Anywhere other than here!”
And so it continues.
I’ve not lived on the estate for many years (nearing 20) yet even back then it was earmarked for more affordable housing but the council didn’t have the funds to do so, so how come locals have not heard anything & choose to not read the proposals that are attached to the trees?
I’m also sure that this has been spoken of more recently within the last 4 years due to government funding for more social housing.
You either want people off of the waiting list & out of temporary housing or you don’t.
Either way, you are looking selfish to those who are living in hotels & hostels that are not suitable for children.
The people in Hodshrove road are not lying about not being consulted in the early stages in 2020 ! We were not invited to the so called 4 meetings that took place which took residents opinions into consideration !! By the time anyone knew about it the plans were all drawn up and (as we all know already) in motion ,no matter what was said at any meeting yesterday . We don’t deny that housing is needed but planting 6 or 7 storey imposing blocks of concrete right in front of residents properties is a way to cause misery and conflict . The buildings could be further away and lower in height and leave the green areas . Who wants to sit on a 3G pitch for a picnic or an impromptu kick about . Not that you’d be allowed anyway !!! It’s a disgrace what they are doing .
We need social housing and if half of the student accommodation that has appeared recently had been given to families we wouldn’t have such a shortage !!! Don’t say it’s not owned by the Council .. it must have been at some point ?
There were about 3 notices tied on lamp posts in the whole area .. saying there was a 2 week deadline to go online to object which was a lie in itself as you could comment as late as this week ……. But not everyone can do this , it’s difficult to navigate . Door to door consultation could have been done on something so serious s long time ago . People are quick enough to go door to door when canvassing for votes ( although they don’t actually want to stop long to talk to you haha) !!!
Moulsecoomb was the first garden estate ..soon to be an ugly concrete eyesore like the rest of Brighton ! So much for having a Green council !! It’s a joke !! Never been anything less Green !
I am surprised to read that some people are concerned about the lack of green spaces and recreational areasl in the proposed building site. It is a stones throw away from the Wild Park , well within walking and cycling reach. I used to live in Hodshrove Rd. As a child and we had no problem with walking from there to the park for having fun playing and taking picnics when the weather was nice. The town is desperate for new homes so a site so near to easy access to several bus services should be welcome.
Phyllis, with the greatest respect, I wasn’t against the development, I was asking for changes that would have preserved the recreational spaces. You could do that with 75% of the homes remaining, it was I think even possible to keep all the recreational facilities, parkland and 100% of the homes. The developers and council called it a brownfield site but half is park and recreational (also the other half wasn’t on the official government brownfield list). I guess we’ll see how people take to it when it is going up. I do honestly hope it will be well received. Everyone I spoke to agreed the current park, both pitches and the playing field should have remained; a lot of that will be gone. Just to clarify that I was in favour of a development of some kind and the majority of the homes; it just needed to be reconfigured. I honestly don’t believe the council would have done the same and approved a council flat development on even ten percent of Hove Park or Preston Park.
More homes should always be welcome, Brighton is at risk of becoming a city where people can’t afford to live. But as always, I am also concerned about the medical infrastructure to accommodate the new homes.
All pharmacies and surgeries are not created equal, and I would be keen to promote the council giving special consideration to those that utilize modern technologies and solutions to maximise the efficiencies of both synergetically, and to help reduce ongoing pressures of our Royal Sussex County Hospital Major Trauma Centre.
I live in North moulsecoomb and never received any leaflets or information about these plans. I agree that the council needs to build more social housing, but why in moulsecoomb? The entire community will be affected by it. Brighton and Hove Council has plenty of unused spaces. This space is playing fields/sports pitches and family areas. Moulsecoomb as a community has matured and grown into a mostly quiet and friendly place, these plans will only bring overcrowding to the area and possibly unwanted trouble. It’s just not what the established residents need or want.