Plans for new homes and flats in Shoreham's Brighton Road refused for second time

The application for riverside land at 5 Brighton Road, was turned down for a second time during a meeting of the planning committee on Monday (March 6).

The plans were originally rejected in September 2022 because councillors were not happy with the lack of affordable housing, the size and appearance of the development or how it would impact upon the nearby listed lighthouse.

A handful of changes were made to the plans but committee members were still unimpressed, with one declaring that ‘nothing really seems to have changed apart from the shape of the roof’.

The changes saw a redesign of the roofs of the terraced houses and the use of air source heat pumps in the homes rather than gas-powered energy.

Five of the flats were set aside for shared ownership and a ‘more flexible approach to car parking’ was mentioned, though some of the spaces could be ‘slightly less’ than the standard size.

A report to the committee said a Car Club would be provided either within two months of the first home being occupied or when half of the flats were occupied.

Dan Flower (Lab, Southlands) said the proposals were ‘the sort of development we should be seeking to avoid in Shoreham’.

He added: “Here we have got a development where your parking space isn’t even big enough to potentially [fit] your car.

“The minimum distance between your house and the house opposite hasn’t been stuck to and is probably going to result in you keeping your curtains closed all day because the houses are so close together.”

Mr Flower said he had hoped the developer would come back with a more imaginative design ‘rather than the sort of block you’d find in south London or Manchester’.

He added: “When we made it very clear that we felt this design wasn’t appropriate last time around, nothing really seems to have changed apart from the shape of the roof.

“I don’t really see how the developer has taken on anything that we put forward last time.

“It pretty much looks exactly the same – which is an over-developed site with too many homes on it and not enough space for people to even go outside.”

Carol O’Neal (Lab, Eastbrook) took issue with the fact that shared ownership flats were being classed as affordable housing.

She said: “Five flats out of this size of development is not worthy of the name affordable housing by any stretch of the imagination.”

Even if they were classed as affordable, the numbers would still fall short of the 30 per cent expected.

Concerns were also raised about how close the riverside path would run to the houses.

Mr Flower said: “If you are lucky enough to have a house that looks over the river, you are going to have a continuous procession of people walking past just inches from your windows.”

He described a response from officers that some of the glass could be obscured as ‘farcical’.

The application was rejected by 5 votes to 0 with 4 abstentions for the same reasons as it had been in September.