"Shame On You!" Councillors Heckled As They Approve Hove Flats

Councillors were heckled and jeered as they approved plans for a six-storey block of flats on the site of a garage despite objections from more than 120 neighbours.

Residents shouted “shame on you” from the public gallery at Hove Town Hall as Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee voted nine to one to grant planning permission for the flats.

The developer Orchard Holdings (Hove) Ltd will have to reach an agreement on various details with the council over its plans for 65 Orchard Gardens, Hove, on the corner of Nevill Road.

Orchard Holdings already has planning permission for a £14 million scheme to build 36 flats over five storeys.

The latest vote means that the company, owned by Alfred Haagman, 64, Jonathan Bennett, 37, and David Lincoln Willis, 63, can build 42 flats over six floors on Portslade Panelworks site.

Resident Jo Elston spoke on behalf of the 124 residents who objected to the application at the Planning Committee meeting this afternoon (Wednesday, March 6).

Concerns include parking and the height of the proposed building and Jo Elston said:

“There is a parking overspill of 24 additional spaces, suggesting that on-street parking is available.

“As a current resident, I am aware that no parking restrictions mean our streets are used for free parking.”

She added that parking pressures would worsen once other nearby housing schemes were completed, such as Moda, the former Sackville Trading Estate, in Sackville Road.

Conservative councillors Samer Bagaeen and Ivan Lyons, who represent Westdene and Hove Park ward, spoke against the application.

Councillor Bagaeen, a professor of planning, said that the council had “solid legal grounds” to refuse planning permission.

He said:

“This development impacts the two-storey homes all along the streets that make up the Orchards.

“This proposal should be considered out of step with the two-storey design of the adjacent homes and providing and creating an awkward and discordant relationship.”

Councillor Lyons said that the site was not attractive as it was and neighbours were not opposed to redevelopment in principle.

But he added: “Families are crying out for more houses in this area, not flats, especially as we are trying to reverse the declining number of children attending our schools.”

Orchard Holdings’ agent Sarah Hufford, an associate director at ECE Planning, said that a similar application was already approved for 36 homes.

She said:

“The principle of the development, the housing mix, access proposals and design approach have already been approved by the council.

“The site has also been found to be sustainably located, with lower than the maximum parking levels accepted, with lower levels of car ownership in this area, with 41 per cent of flat owners not owning a car at all.”

She told the committee that the new plans were only 1.5 metres higher than the approved application.

Conservative councillor Carol Theobald asked why there was no affordable housing planned on site.

Ms Hufford said that the latest scheme and the previous scheme would not be viable if affordable housing had to be included.

This was because of the high cost of development and increasing building costs, she said, and providing basement car parking was also expensive.

Councillor Theobald said:

“This is a very prominent position. It will stick out a lot. It’s not fair to the neighbours as their houses and gardens will be overlooked.

“The overflow car parking – there will be some – is going to be very difficult in this area.”

Green councillor Sue Shanks said that the design would be better than what was there at the moment.

Councillor Shanks said:

“I don’t see much difference from this application to the previous, which is an improvement.

“In terms of parking, as there’s no residents’ scheme, it’s going to be difficult for those streets around.”

Labour councillor Liz Loughran, who chairs the Planning Committee, said that she was disappointed at the lack of affordable housing. She said:

“Our city is in a critical state with the lack of affordable housing.”

It particularly affected 22 to 44-year-olds, she said, adding:

“The result is we have families who are leaving the city.

“We should be encouraging all developers to come up with affordable housing that meets the needs of all demographics in the city, not just those who can pay for private accommodation.”

Councillor Theobald was the only committee member to vote against the scheme although the council’s head of planning will be able to refuse permission if agreements are not reached by Tuesday, September 24.

These include agreements about

• a “commuted sum” payment of £305,000 towards affordable housing elsewhere in Brighton and Hove
• an £11,600 contribution towards skills needs on-site
• pre-employment training for new entrants to the industry
• on-site and apprentice placements
• employment and training strategy costs
• strategies for the demolition and construction phases
• a transport agreement
• “public realm” improvements in Orchard Gardens and Nevill Road