A campaign group opposed to plans to build almost 500 homes on the former Brighton gasworks site described their three-year battle as like David v Goliath.
Three members of AGHAST (Action on Gasworks Housing Affordability, Safety and Transparency) addressed councillors at a key meeting at Hove Town Hall yesterday (Wednesday 22 May).
And Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee sided with them, turning down a planning application by St William, part of the Berkeley Group, a £5 billion housebuilding business.
St William wanted to demolish the remaining structures on the gasworks site and build 11 blocks of flats up to 12 storeys high, on the former gasworks site in Marina Way.
Members of AGHAST were worried about the health risks of building 481 flats and 14 townhouses on contaminated land, the height and size of the buildings and a lack of meaningful consultation.
These were among the reasons behind the Planning Committee’s refusal to grant planning permission for the £280 million scheme by seven votes to three.
Cliff Road resident Beccy East, who spoke at the meeting yesterday, said: “Our hope is that future plans, which undoubtedly will be brought forward for the site, will approach our community with greater care and respect and will be of a scale and quality that works for the area and keeps us all safe.
“We hope that last night’s decision sends a message to big developers that they can’t just use their deep pockets to bully local councils and communities into accepting plans that are not right for them.”
Labour councillor Gill Williams, who represents Whitehawk and Marina ward, also addressed the committee to object to the scheme – and was pleased with the outcome.
Councillor Williams is the council’s cabinet member for housing and new homes but criticised the proposals during the six-and-a-half-hour Planning Committee meeting.
She said: “I am of course delighted with the decision as I have been working closely with concerned residents for a number of years.
“This decision emphasises the importance of meaningful consultation with local residents and that developers must respect this.”
Fellow Labour councillor David McGregor, who also represents Whitehawk and Marina, said: “I’m so glad to see the Planning Committee reject this application.
“What we need in our city is more social housing and genuinely affordable homes. This application delivered neither.”
Another Labour councillor Gary Wilkinson, who represents the neighbouring Kemptown ward, attended a protest at the site earlier this month with his newly elected ward colleague Theresa Mackey and Councillor Williams.
Councillor Wilkinson said: “This is great news for Kemptown and an opportunity to rethink the approach to the gasworks site.
“Having lived close to the site, I agree with many in the local community that this would have been an over-development and completely out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area.
“This high-density, high-rise development of 495 units at 12 storeys high, would have been in stark contrast to the largely low-rise residential neighbourhood.”
St William has not yet said publicly whether it will appeal against the council’s decision, submit revised plans or go back to the drawing board.
These folks have their own home already and will stop at nothing to prevent others from being able to do so.
Like the marina, these are not homes for local people but a place for billionaires to stash and launder their cash.
Exactly right, Fark. That or second homes, dual used for Airb&b.
This is fantastic news for the local community and Brighton. We need affordable social housing. Not tower blocks that pack as many people in as possible.
Great to see a good decision by the council to protect our beautiful seafront and not let developers take advantage of the housing crisis!!! GREAT NEWS!!
MOr drug dealers in the case of the Marina…😂
You don’t seem to understand this development would only benefited out of town investors – second homes and such like. Very little support would have been given to the local community and there was no obligation to provide any affordable homes. You’ve probably never even been to the site – it is totally unsuitable to the mass development proposed.
If they want to use the site for housing, it should be looked to provide a mix of low rise social housing and 3-4 bed houses – providing housing for families and the disabled and key workers, which there is a really need for in this end of the city. We don’y want an enclave of second homes.
It was an unsustainable, badly throughout plan and has got the response exactly because off of this!
If they appeal, I hope they get the same community response – it’s not wanted. It’s not NIMBY-ism – it’s a bad proposal!!!
Maybe they are just more caring than you. They do not want to live around contaminated land and don’t want others to either. Just because you are a nimby who wants other people to suffer doesn’t mean we all have to. Grow up?
Might want to disclose your business, James. Certainly says volumes about your stance.
Well done them. This was not just a gas holding site, but a gas processing site, which brings a shedload of other contaminants and health risks into the equation as Berkeley should know after their Southall gasworks development outfall. All former gasworks sites are not the same.
Yes it is called Black rock for a reason but the cliffs are white these days.
Well done AGHAST !
The decision to halt the Brighton gasworks development is a major setback for addressing the severe housing shortage in our city. Brighton desperately needs new homes, including those that may be unaffordable for some, to ensure a diverse and dynamic housing market. Dense developments are crucial for maximizing limited urban space and providing more living options for residents. This decision is far from a victory; it signifies more delays and increased costs while an unattractive, contaminated brownfield site sits unused, possibly for another 40 years.
It’s a shame that NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) have managed to stop a project that could have significantly benefited the community. Their opposition is a short-sighted approach that prioritizes their interests over the greater good. The health risks and other concerns raised could have been addressed through stringent safety measures and regulations. Instead, this delay only exacerbates the housing crisis and hinders progress.
Brighton needs forward-thinking solutions and the willingness to embrace change. Stopping this development is not a triumph for the community; it’s a missed opportunity for growth and improvement. The focus should be on finding ways to make such projects safe and beneficial rather than blocking them altogether. Shame on those who halted this progress, leaving a blighted site to remain an eyesore and a wasted space for potentially decades to come.
Sadly your reply is NOT evidence-based. One of the main talking points in the 6 and a half hour planning meeting was the lack of any form commitment to so called “afrordable housing l” which is actually 80% of market rates and still unaffordable for average people even if available. The issue of “social housing”(ie truely affordable ) has never been mentioned for this site.
I thought Brighton had a housing problem? The council could insist on the builders making half of the flats social.
Contamination. Nimby
What usually happens is that it’s granted in that proviso, they the developer those a viability study, and says it is no longer possible to provide that many social homes.
You are such a nimby! You wouldn’t live in contaminated places…why expect other people to! Sad.
David keeps winning up and down the country – meanwhile the young Goliaths of this world can’t buy a house.
I’m OK though, so shrug!
I hope the developers appeal against this stupid decision and win, it’s a great opportunity to upgrade the area we live in, there will unfortunately always be people that never want change, there is a housing problem in this city weather it’s flats, houses or affordable accommodation.
The only way forward is for the big companies to invest in our city, this decision will just put these companies off
and they will go elsewhere with Brighton continually falling apart.
New homes are needed but they need to be safe, and affordable. Communities need to be involved in these decisions. RISE has a lease on a small building in this area where children and adults can access confidential counselling. We hope that any new plans will preserve this important therapeutic space for survivors in our city.
I’m alright Jack, strikes again
Nah, there are some legitimate concerns that have been well articulated. Worth reading into them Sti, might change that viewpoint of yours.
I’ve never seen so many objections to a redevelopment. SGN and other gas companies are dismantling most of the former gasholders around the UK with a completition date of 2025. I’ll think this site will probably be the last the way things are going.
Maybe the locals are fond of the gasholders and want them left there for future generations. Industrial heritage.
Two wrongs don’t make a right comes to mind. There are some very reasonable objections coming through, beyond simple NIMBYism. There have also been several alternatives suggested to the design offered to the developer, which have all been rejected as of my last update.
The article makes is seem like nimbyism and doesn’t articulate the threat to the local community of contaminated land being dug up and transported at the initial stage of a construction project like this. That’s a lot of contaminated dust and that stage of the project could take months.
With a few live case studies of the decreased respiratory health of residents in the area for other gas work redevelopment projects. It is a very reasonable objection to not want to breathe dangerous contaminations.
Even more basic, they are solely reliant on Homes England giving them a high amount of taxpayers money to do this to provide ANY affordable homes, and are unable to say they’ve made any progress on this side of things. Not to mention dodgy inconsistencies in their FVA.