Councillors Approve £87m Scheme For 212 Brighton Homes

Councillors granted planning permission for an £87 million scheme to build more than 200 council homes in Moulescoomb at a meeting yesterday (Jan 11).

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.