A housing co-operative has lost its appeal to build a house and two flats on an empty plot of land.
Bunker Housing Co-operative appealed after councillors voted to refuse planning permission for the scheme on land next to 12 Dunster Close, in Hollingdean.
The proposals faced opposition from neighbours because the plot is used as a play area by children living in the area and is home to bats and slow worms.
Bunker said that Brighton and Hove City Council had earmarked the site and nearby garages for housing but deemed them too small for council-funded schemes.
Instead, the council agreed a 125-year lease for both plots with Bunker. The council granted permission for two houses in place of the garages but turned down plans for the other site.
Bunker proposed a single building containing a four-bedroom house and two one-bed flats to be let at “local housing allowance” rents – £390 a week for the house and £184 for each flat.
In its appeal statement, Bunker said: “Both schemes employed the same visual style, same high-levels of sustainability and construction techniques.
“At Dunster Close, Bunker has looked to utilise underused, unviable council-owned land within an established residential area for the delivery of much-needed affordable housing through a community-led housing provider as per the council’s desire.”
The statement said that the land was not a “designated” green open space even though it was used as an informal play area.
The council, in its response to Bunker’s appeal statement, said that several shared its concerns about children losing their green play area.
The council said: “The loss of green space and high-quality trees was considered to have an unacceptable impact upon biodiversity and local amenity.
“The proposed built footprint was considered to be excessive relative to the plot size and the proposed design was considered to be inappropriate and out of keeping with its surroundings.”
Planning inspector Martin Andrews said that the application was initially recommended for approval because the need for housing outweighed the loss of green space.
He said: “In my assessment, the existing site makes a significant and positive contribution to the visual amenity of this residential area.
“This is partly because it effectively has two frontages to the public realm, at the end of the Dunster Close cul-de-sac and at a 90-degree bend in Dudley Road.
“In both cases, the eye is drawn to and rewarded by the green space and/or mature trees forming a pleasing contrast with the neighbouring houses, but especially so in Dunster Close where the sward of grass and the backdrop of mature sycamores combine to provide an especially scenic vista in both longer and shorter views.”
Mr Andrews echoed concerns about the effect of extra cars in the narrow street.
Bunker Housing Co-operative said: “We’re really disappointed after so much time, energy, funding and capacity was spent working on the site and after we adjusted our initial plans in response to community concerns. In all honesty, we were not expecting this decision.
“As a housing co-operative that’s run voluntarily by its members to build homes that the city desperately needs – affordable, sustainable, collectively owned forever – it’s hard sometimes to encounter so many obstacles and, at times, what can be such vehement local opposition.
“We haven’t made any decisions yet regarding any future plans for the site.”
This Council is a disgrace. They will let the people with money build what they want, where they want.
They will – ugly and inappropriate stuff for the site as well. And even developments with not much or nothing affordable in it too. I think I’m right in saying that, if the developer doesn’t include the appropriate amount of affordable housing, then they must pay a lump sum towards affordable housing elsewhere. Do they? And does this other affordable housing actually get built? And where is ‘elsewhere’ given the dire shortage of housing sites in B&H?