Local election updates 2023

After narrowly missing victory in the 2022 bielection, AGHAST are exploring with all local candidates for 2023 their response to Berkely's gasworks development plans. If you would like to use your vote for candidates opposed to the plans, we will be updating this page with their positions closer to polling day. If you would like to contact us about the local elections drop us an email to protestforbrightongasworks@gmail.com

We asked all cadidates:

Do you support Berkeley St. William's proposals or not (Yes or No) and
What are your reasons for the Yes or No response?

Click a ward below to see the responses received so far:

Marina & Whitehawk ward: (click to view)

Gill Williams (Labour): “I am in full support [of the AGHAST campaign] .As you now I submitted an objection to planning and would be most interested in working with you on the 2nd home ban for new developments which I raised as a motion to council and is in our manifesto.

The ban will take the form of a planning policy condition which only allows developers to sell to buyers who will use the property as principal home.

Happy to discuss further.”

David McGregor (Labour): David initially contacted us stating "I do support [Berekelys] proposals but I have some major concerns about safety."

He later added: “I’m in support of the AGHAST campaign. There’s an argument that it can be done safely, but we have further concerns about affordable housing, safety and the number of houses proposed."

Stewart Stone (Lib Dems): “The site ought to be reclaimed and new homes built bt the current proposal should be rejected in favour of one that properly addressed all the issues

Decontamination of the poisoned soil must be carried out in such a way as to avoid polluting the environment (toxins from the site are already entering the water in the Marina)

Compliance with the council’s ‘Tall Buildings’ zones policy should be enforced

Threats to the stability of collapsing cliffs had to be taken into account

Adequate provision of parking and other facilities ought to be made, together with plans to minimise increased traffic congestion

As currently envisaged, a collection of characterless 12-storey buildings would dominate a stretch of exceptionally fine listed architecture.”

Aditi Bhonagiri (Grn): awaiting reply

Mat Sunderland (Grn): awaiting reply

Paul Wood (Con): awaiting reply

Robb Young (con): awaiting reply

Bill North (TUSC) : awaiting reply

Kemp Town ward: (click to view)

Bharti Gajjar (Lab): The Labour group's position is that we oppose the development.

Gary Wilkinson (Lab): I do not support Berkley St William's proposals for the redevelopment of the gasworks site.

I spoke out against the current development at the recent Kemptown Hustings and I can reassure you that AGHAST has my full support in opposing the scheme.

Whilst supportive of appropriate low-level redevelopment, I agree with many in the local community that the proposed development of the gasworks site is large, dense, and raises many concerns.

It is completely out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area, not every site can contain a high-rise dense development, and it will not deliver an appropriate level of affordable housing. It fails to deliver adequate parking and does not provide any community uses. Importantly it also raises serious concerns in respect of land contamination and remediation. Full details of the contamination and proposed mitigation measures must be subject to public consultation prior to the submission of any planning application.

The scheme is entirely inappropriate and I would urge all members on the planning committee to refuse the proposals in order to consider a more appropriate low-rise scheme, which does not cause the harm and would deliver the 40% affordable housing and adequate parking provision which the community demands.

Robert Brown & Dominique Hall* [Lib Dem]: The site ought to be reclaimed and new homes built but the current proposal should be rejected in favour of one that properly addressed all the issues

Decontamination of the poisoned soil must be carried out in such a way as to avoid polluting the environment (toxins from the site are already entering the water in the Marina)

Compliance with the council’s “Tall Buildings” zones policy should be enforced

Threats to the stability of collapsing cliffs had to be taken into account

Adequate provision of parking and other facilities ought to be made, together with plans to minimise increased traffic congestion

As currently envisaged, a collection of characterless 12-storey buildings would dominate a stretch of exceptionally fine listed architecture

*though it is worth noting that Dominique identified herself as in favour of ‘all opportunities to build new homes, including this one’ at a recent Housing Hustings

Alan Charles Towler (Ind): No, I do not support Berkley St William's proposals.

When I attended the last meeting of AGHAST I was genuinely shocked to hear how decontaminating the site was going to impact on the lives of local residents for years. At the Kemptown hustings I was disappointed that the other candidates seemed unaware of the specific issues relating to the gasworks site (Greens did not attend so in the dark on their opinion). It is unacceptable to me to consider building on this site until it has been safely decontaminated with minimal impact on the community.

If the site can be made safe I think it would be an excellent brownfield site for new housing. However, the plan submitted to the council would not get my support. The proposal is clearly an over development and the high rise nature is at odds with the wider environment. I believe the plan is seriously flawed and fails to understand the geographical, societal and practical issues at this site. A development on a more human scale would get my support assuming it could demonstrate that it meets the needs of the area, includes a guaranteed number of affordable homes and that local infrastructure was in place to support the additional residents.

I'm happy to say AGHAST has my full support and as Cllr Bridget Fishleigh has stated, Brighton & Hove Independents are with you all the way.

Ewan Clinch (Con): awaiting reply

Josephine O Carroll (Con): awaiting reply

Lyn-Oran Knott (Grn): awaiting reply

Ben Simmonds (Grn): awaiting reply

Rottingdean & West Saltden ward: (click to view)

Bridget Fishleigh and Mark Earthey (Ind): “Our city desperately needs new homes but the current plans from Berkeley are unacceptable. Too high. Too dense. Out of keeping with the surrounding Grade 1 Kemp Town estate. Not enough information about how the site will be de-contaminated. No additional services or road improvements to support new residents. Flats that would be snapped up by overseas investors. The list continues.

We will continue to work with AGHAST, The Brighton Society and all other groups who share our concerns - and also want to see low-level affordable housing on the site”.

Caroline Lesley Ellis (Lib Dem): “The site ought to be reclaimed and new homes built but the current proposal should be rejected in favour of one that properly addressed all the issues

Decontamination of the poisoned soil must be carried out in such a way as to avoid polluting the environment (toxins from the site are already entering the water in the Marina)

Compliance with the council’s “Tall Buildings” zones policy should be enforced

Threats to the stability of collapsing cliffs had to be taken into account

Adequate provision of parking and other facilities ought to be made, together with plans to minimise increased traffic congestion

As currently envisaged, a collection of characterless 12-storey buildings would dominate a stretch of exceptionally fine listed architecture.”

Dr Ron White (Lab): The Labour group's position is that we oppose the development.

Carole McIver-Wren (Lab): The Labour group's position is that we oppose the development.

Daniel David Harrison (Con): awaiting response

Steven John Smith (Con): awaiting response

Carol Bullock (Grn): awaiting response

Georgia Wrighton (Grn): awaiting response

Nigel Mackenzie Smith (IND): awaiting response

Ronald William Reader (TUSC): awaiting response

In 2021 with support from our local ward, AGHAST fielded a single-issue candidate on the gasworks development in the local bi-election for Rottingdean Coastal. Despite being the first ever foray into local politics for all of us, and with no party machine supporting us, our brilliant candidate, Stephen White, came second by just a handful of votes. What this communicates load and clear us is the strength of local feeling about the gasworks development. This is a political issue and we call on all local councillors to advocate for the concerns of local residents about the plans.

1355 VOTES FOR STEPHEN WHITE!
A fantastic result, who only very narrowly missed getting elected.

Dear Members of AGHAST, concerned local residents & the electors of Rottingdean Coastal Ward,

After a very hard-fought campaign to get elected as a new Independent Councillor I must tell you that due to all your wonderful support and hard work as part of my election team, and to all of you who went out and voted for me at the Polling Stations I only very narrowly missed getting elected. However I’m pretty sure that I could have won had it not been for the unfortunate fact that there was one other Independent candidate, whose name was confusingly similar to mine, Wright not White, which resulted in quite a few ballot papers being deemed “spoilt” because some confused voters had either voted for both of us, or, in some cases, mistakenly voted for the wrong one of us.

Although this was unfortunate, all your helpful votes did do what we hoped they would do which was to send a very clear message to the Council that there is now an enormous groundswell against the present planning application by the Berkeley Group to massively over-develop the toxic East Brighton Gasworks site. So thank you all for your very much appreciated, and highly significant, votes.

Continue to tell The Council & The Berkeley Group these Very Clear Messages...

The Gasworks proposals are

unacceptable because:

The Site is Too Toxic

The Buildings are Too High and Too Dense

There will be No Affordable Housing for Locals.

Simply because I stood as a candidate in the election, with the issue of the Gasworks at the forefront of my campaign, we managed to raise a lot more public awareness of the issue. It was also clear that ALL the candidates for Councillor (of no matter which Party) have now openly declared themselves against the present planning application, and they are all agreed that it is, at the very least, a distinctly wrong-headed over-development of the site.

So with this issue now very much in the public eye I think it would be appropriate for us all to ride the wave of popular local opinion to once again start lobbying our existing Councillors, and the Labour Team, of MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle with his newly-elected Labour Councillor, Dr Robert Mcintosh to work on further strategies to get this current planning application thrown out and completely re-thought.

I know that many of you are probably thoroughly confused by what stage this application has now reached with the Council. I can only tell you that we have now been informed that it is in a temporary “holding pattern” and will not be ready for consideration by the Planning Committee until the late summer or autumn, at the earliest. However before it is brought before the committee we have been assured that it will be subject to a further round of public comment, and more objections may need to be submitted by local residents to the Council’s Planning Portal at that point, to take account of any amendments that may have been made to it.

But at all events you can be sure that we, on behalf of AGHAST & the Gasworks Coalition Group of 16 Brighton Amenity Groups, will keep on top of any further developments and will try and keep you as fully informed as possible via this website.

Yours with my sincerest thanks for all your votes of confidence and support

Stephen White