1 In my opinion, any development of any kind that does not consider contaminated site,nvironmental factors and wind tunnel risks is fool hardy. The current proposal provides no proper social provision and would [illegible], pollution and issues of strain on [illegible] into the area without addressing the priority issues of affordable housing and marrying the environment. Thank you for representing us.
2 Minimum disturbance.
3 Resurrect Prof. Robert Powell's proposal as an aesthetic alternative.
4 Low and medium density housing only, with good green spaces, and low impact construction (not deep foundation disturbing the soil and water table.)
5 Current approach risks contamination - and my health since I live with long-term chronic conditions
6 The present application is a complete overdevelopment of the site. It will blight the local architecture. It poses a severe risk to the health and sanity of local residents for the next decade and will adversely affect the vital tourism industry and the safety of sea swimmers from pollution. The complete inadequacy of the parking spaces provided will risk bringing the neighbourhood to a standstill. It is aesthetically ugly and over-dominant in height, bulk and density. It will wreck local architectural heritage assets such as the Kemptown Estates and the beautiful French De Courcel building as well as the several miles of much-loved Regency Sea Front architecture. It offers no benefit whatever to the local community and risks ugly high-rise apartments (aimed at investors) standing empty for many years to come (like many similar ones in the Marina).
7 Our primary concerns in this development are site decontamination (the developer does not have a good track record in this) as well as overdevelopment to create a blot on the seafront.
8 Historical evidence of gas site reclaim, tells us the dangers. We’re all fully aware. This site is a test to see if any lesson have been learnt from the horrendous mistakes. And.... People developing the site should live in Brighton to make sure the consequences of their building standards are met. The funds from this developer should be fully transparent and all council members etc making these decisions. No mafia please! We’ve all had enough of it. It’s in our faces, on our streets snd no development should go ahead, based on this process. I don’t need to go into any more detail. The council well know what’s been going on. Please use this development to change history. Let’s put Brighton on the map again of forward thinking not corruption.
9 High rise , high rent, contaminated, car attracting, congestion creating NO THANKYOU and it’s obvious if you take financial gain out if the picture.
10 Having grown up opposite the ford factory in Dagenham the most important thing for me is for my little boy is to grow up in a non toxic environment. I would like something that will benefit our community so am open to development but want to avoid digging down and e avoid the risk of growing up in a toxic area, the risk to our health should be top priority. Cannot understsnd why this type of development is even being considered! Madness
11 Over populating the area and toxic fumes are very worrying
12 Really concerned about overpopulation if the area with lack of schools, GP, etc. VERY concerned about health safety during construction
13 It seems this gas works site would be ideal for new housing as long as it is decontamination thoroughly. There obviously used to be a gas works container there, so the view has historically been obscured in the past. Therefore if flats are built it will not matter so much. I would much prefer housing to be built there then Swanborough Drive in Whitehawk which is already densely housed with the flats.
14 This developer has a track record of buying cheap contaminated sites and causing environmental damage with over development. Planners should be protecting residents from profit focused development that comes at an environmental cost.
15 If airborne toxicity from the site impacts on local residents health this will become an issue that will affect the local housing market for years to come.
16 Infrastructure in this area does not sustain addition housing to the proposed level. Any wind tunnel affect could cause accidents . The area is toxic and a Danger to public health in the name of profit. There is a school with young children directly opposite the site. It's a non runner.
17 London cookie cutter tower blocks are unacceptable.
18 I don’t want any redevelopment to take place as this would overload the local infrastructure.
19 The potential health risks of the development to existing local residents is my main concern. Everything else is secondary.
20 Wouldn’t it be great if when development projects in Brighton were initially being created that the first question was ‘what do Brighton residents truly need?’ A question that is so fundamental but alway over looked. Where is our affordable housing? What are we doing to keep families in the city? What is it we are lacking? Because I tell you what, more over priced, unattainable flats for locals to rent is definitely not it! And as a local resident I would like to live a healthy life which has not been polluted by the unnecessary digging up of the gas works! I also long for a day when Brighton Council actually listens to us and our needs are put before that of financial gains....A lot to ask I know, but I can dream!....
21 No high rise is the highest priority, with high quality materials, appropriate for the area secondary which complement, but are secondary to the adjacent to local conservation area and listed buildings so not to distract from them.
22 The increased gentrification of our cities is a problem. TRULY affordable housing if that is the route taken should be top priority. Many of us in Whitehawk are already in council houses paying far too much, building only for the rich displaces everyone else.
23 Under no circumstances should this be an area of very tall buildings - see B&H policy
24 Brighton needs more social housing
25 It is unbelievable to me that the developers can suggest such a huge number of flats to be built in such a small area. This is an incredibly windy area of brighton already without the building of huge wind canyons to knock us over. The shadow most of the day plus the loss of privacy to all on the periphery of the sight is very worrying. BUT- my biggest worry is Berkeleys track record of poor contamination procedures creating at this present time, AWFUL problems for residents of southall and mitchum, both sites emitting such bad stenchs from remediation that it is actually making locals sick, and there are investigations started into this. Blood tests are being taken to determine exactly what is going on with the local populations health. Without your health you have nothing. I do not want my family and I (nor my neighbours)to be put at risk by removing the cap on this historically contaminated site, digging deep for tower block foundations, plus having contaminated dust falling on a 500 metre radius from the site. A scoping report from a couple of years back admits that this will happen. Wake up developers-people need afforable housing with some outside space, not small flats for develoers to let out for air bnb s.
26 Whilst I believe that socially affordable housing is important this could be done by offset ie developer funds the same elsewhere locally Space for performing arts not a primary concern for me nor is tool workshops etc. This is not a village. Homes and shops/ cafes more important If green space then playgrounds not needed as they are on the sea front
27 I think the site needs to be developed in some manor. It is ugly and it is surrounded by the Downs and regency buildings so sticks out as being neglected. I think once the site is developed the area will be lifted into a more sustainable and community minded area.
28 Children’s mental health .. a hub for children to be able to pick up a musical instrument and get free lessons from a team of volunteer teachers from Roedean, Brighton College, Verdict Jazz club to give underprivileged children an opportunity to discover the joy in music & its power to uplift and manage stress at all ages and work together in an ensemble.
29 It seems that yet again Brighton council are pushing through a development planning application without appropriate local consultation and not listening to locals
30 My main views are that decent social housing in Whitehawk has completely changed my life for the better, and I wish that for others so much - Brighton desperately needs more properly affordable and social housing. However, they need to ensure that the roundabout at the bottom of the hill (by the Waldorf School/Laundrette/International Grocery shop) is safe for pedestrians both during the construction and once there's more traffic - I already find that a difficult junction to cross safely. And I fear that the new residents would be put off with quite a long walk to a bus stop, this would need to be looked into properly just so it doesn't gum up transport for this area (and so it doesn't encourage lots of car ownership just out of awkwardness).
31 Infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure!
32 When the work will start? Enough with existing awful industrial area
33 I think the remedial groundwork scarmongering is being hyped up. I think this is inappropriate. This type of work is heavily monitored by gov and local agencies to ensure its done properly. The Croydon example MAY be where this has not done properly, elsewhere in many instance it has.
34 Please start do it, want to see it in my life time.
35 Do not build a high rise building. It will completely ruin the local area and stop residents in Arundel street being able to sell their houses. It is already doing this and te effect has been short term renters are moving in which has ruined the community
36 My biggest concern is the disturbance of the land and the contaminants that could affect the health of the people living and working in the area.
37 The development should be good as I see it deal with the previous users contamination and will tidy an awful area.
38 A maximum of 5 -6 storeys for all buildings on the site. The appearance of the buildings should be a very high priority but they do not need to try and replicate the Georgian houses nearby. There should be a mix of housing sizes and types
39 There is no need for a new green space there. We have the huge east Brighton park right next to the site. My main concern is exposure to contaminants as I already have multiple health conditions and small children. My second concern is the buildings being so tall they block our view of the sea which improves our quality of life greatly considering we have no garden and are stuck at home a lot. The community would benefit hugely from some kind of shared art space and shared workshop with a tool library.
40 We do not want an eyesore development such as happened with the marina.
41 Something needs to happen to this site. I think a mix of housing, social, entertainment, commercial and retail so that it ends up being and looking like the Edward Street Quarter. It should provide a safe through green access for pedestrians and cyclists between East Brighton Park to the Marina via a wide green bridge, the width of the development, in the location as the small bridge that crosses it now but it would completely cover the road . A wide crossing for pedestrians and cyclists across Marine Drive . This might spur on some building on Asda Car Park that incorporates a lift down the cliff face or the lift becomes a stand alone project
42 I found it difficult to rank the importance of final points as all of them rank very highly and rearranged order many times
43 A number of these options in some categories seem a little too tendentious!
44 I hope this doesn't go ahead, but I also know the power of money and influence. The site already serves an existing purpose perfectly well and the developers are only interested in profit, not serving local need.
45 Not at all convinced of the safety of building on contaminated soil.
46 Thanks for doing this!
47 Thank you for organising this
48 It would be good for the council to ask residents what they want before plans are drawn up rather than after. For example the Blackrock consultation was a sham and just done to rubber stamp the MarinaCorp plans and desires. It was also designed to facilitate the selling off of the site to a faceless corporation. Also the council need to fight for residents’ rights and desires rather than always saying that their hands are tied by national planning rules.
49 Need to listen to what the residents of Brighton want and not bow to the wishes of over-zealous developers who are only after making profits without due consideration to what would be best for the area and its residents.
50 Whatever happens here this area should be used for local people. Not sold on to those without any interests in East Brighton - ie just there to make an investment and to hell with the pollution and needs of the community.
51 The first priority is health of community, there must be zero risk to community from the building works. Next we need affordable housing. Additionally architecture can be aspirational and contemporary And sit within the high standards set by adjacent grade 1 listed buildings.
52 No development at all, please
53 The local area already has huge pressure from parking - caused by the Hospital, commuters wishing to avoid parking charges in the City,endless building work in the area, further huge development at the Marina, this site must have proper parking facilities for everyone living and working on the site.
54 Development should not proceed without a commitment to increasing first line health care capacity as access to GP and dental services is already woefully inadequate in this part of the city.
55 Just don't sell the homes to second home owners or investor who don't live there. Otherwise it makes building homes only to the benefit of building companies. Home should be lived in.
56 It is important that the history of the site is fully understood inc. the location of the first gas holders' (in the south) and details of the decontamination of all previous activities.
57 This area needs developing. Let's get the best we can but don't block all suggestions to delay it.
58 Again, the contaminated land is of major concern - as has been highlighted in other gas works that have been redeveloped. I don't care about aesthetics as our communities health is way more important and 12/13 story buildings are unaesthetic/ugly . I don't trust Berkeley based on the consultation meetings to listen to our needs to protect us from contaminated land and to commit to social housing and offer GP facilities etc. In the consultations Berkeley were proud to announce they had already started advertising abroad. The community was horrified. I'm not sure the attendees of the Berkeley group noticed. Please never ask me again about the aesthetic nature of this development until it has been scientifically proven that the health of our community will not be impacted negatively and Berkeley have committed to safety measures to mitigate any impact - however expensive this may be. I can't stress enough this is the highest priority. Please note - I am not against more homes/development I am concerned for my and others health.
59 Thank you Robert Brown Kemptown LibDems
60 This is a highly contaminated area and any work on it will increase environmental risk and damage health, as air will become contaminated. There will be increased stress on water and sewage works. Additional cars will increase congestion and again increase air pollution.
61 Please keep fighting
62 In the current plan housing is too dense and the buildings are too high. I own a basement flat in Arundel Street and am concerned that sunlight will be blocked out
63 As a local resident I support the safe development of the site
64 Hi - I am most worried about the contamination so if there is going to be development it needs to be low rise to avoid digging down into the Gasworks.
65 I firmly believe the gasworks needs to be developed into housing that is needed rather than left as the uninspiring mess it currently is. Higher density is my preference due to the rental issues we have here in the city where much of what is on offer is old, damp and poorly maintained. Provided genuinely affordable housing is incorporated into the mix I am in full support.
66 this site needs developing as it is a wasted asset - but the continuation issue needs to be answered as does the affordability of the homes. to avoid commercial landlords the homes should be primary residences
67 We believe that there should be development here even if our views are entirely taken in to account. Our primary objective is to have more park space and taller buildings. The benefits of this need to be communicated better as not everyone understands the need to have enough units to support the provision of improved park and community spaces. So taller buildings with a better and much more I proved landscaping of the local area including the pavement and roads. Inclusion of the local school would make real sense as part of this payback.
68 It is not a viable site - the contamination issue is why it is not a viable development site – to ask questions about what possible development proposals might be does not make sense on a site that is contaminated - it is not a viable site - the risk factor of contamination is very high, this is not a development site. To propose that it is even a possibility when the contamination issue is so big shows a lack of understanding on a very basic level. Wind tunnels? Any development should have no wind tunnels! This is not a development site.
69 Keep any development low rise. Ensure affordable housing. Do not disturb toxic soil
70 The site has enough space available for a creative & modern development such as the King’s Cross Gas Holder Park in London.
71 The site is in an extremely windy location. Any development should not worsen this either for dwellings/businesses on the site or residents already living here. I do not believe the developer's Micro Climate Report(s) take into account the wind tunnel effect specific to this location - and yet their proposed development, through modelling, shows it will worsen the situation. I believe these two factors combined will make some areas in and around the site no-go areas for part of the year i.e. for walking, cycling, gardening, external house maintenance etc. Parking provision is a consideration that needs looking at. The developers proposes to build too many dwelling on the site. Over-development for profit, over the health and well-being of residents and workers is what it's looking like. "Take the money and run" leaving behind long term problems for locals to endure if they can't be corrected. Not inclusive. Not community driven. Not caring. Selfish. Reject this proposal and aim for a better long term (healthier) one. Thanks to all who are fighting this over-development on behalf of all who want to live and work a healthy life in a positive environment.
72 Don’t build housing at all
73 High rise, high density building on the site would be a gross mistake and potentially devastating for the surrounding area and those who live within the complex. There simply is no infrastructure present or planned to support such a thing. The area currently greatly benefits from having light industry at the site and that could be improved. In addition the first thing visitors see when they journey from the race course down to the sea is the gas unit, which although not pretty, has an historic cudos about it. A high rise tower or even a moderate tower block will not be at all welcoming and encourage people to turn left at the sea front to search for something like they expected from a Georgian sea-side city.
74 It is not true that the southern part of the site is ‘less contaminated’. The Atkins report which is part of the application states that there is still contaminated building ruins in the ground.
75 Don’t build housing at all
76 Greater willingness to explore sustainability and respect local community
77 The gasworks is an eyesore, but what is needed are, GP surgery; community hub; arts; green space - without contaminating us and something that cuts down on traffic.
78 1) Wind tunnel effect: we have some of this effect even now. 2) GP surgery: We have a serious local lack at present. 3) Comment: We acknowledge that redevelopment is necessary, but the current proposal is wholly unsuitable. The decontamination process is a major concern, especially in the light of Berkely group record on other similar sites.
79 I am not opposed to developer St. Williams plan. Their plans will mediate the environmental impacts.
80 1) Housing: Whichever would support low income familes and key workers to live comfortably. 2) Comment: Thank you for all the work you are doing on behalf on Marine Gate on this issue. There is no doubt that Brighton requires more social and affordable housing and that some compromise on part of local residents is needed. However anything that risks release of pollutants or is just about developers profit is no acceptable.
81 No higher than 4 stories high
82 1) Aesthetics: Not in this area but in-line with MG? 2) Features: Safe area both night and day - not become a drug and drink place to hang around. 3) Comment: We are already having noise issues and traffic pollution aside from this pollution over our heads. Many thanks for looking into this. Best regards.
83 The current plans have no supportive or creative infrastructure i.e. health provision or schools, and will increase pollution in both air quality and quality of life to those around them. The proposed buildings are incompatible with a healthy lifestyle, and will be dark and shady, proposed green spaces will become low grade, unkempt areas, lending themselves to litter and unsociable activity. Current proposal will increase wind tunnel effect and traffic congestion.
84 1) Aesthetics: Regency or Art Deco. 2) Comment: The maximum height must be as per Arundel street, so LOW rise only.
85 We all know there is a great shortage of housing in Brighton, but would these flats/houses be for people wanting to live here? Overseas investment or second home owners could buy up the seafront location. Council could try to put a restriction on buyers like the try to do in places like Cornwall - but really just tidy the site or leave it.
86 1) Aesthetics: It needs to be designed to look nice, Circus street development is ugly. Flats in Marina are ugly! 2) Wind tunnel effect: the wind tunnel at Circus St. and New Brighton University building is awful. 3) Other comments: We need houses for people who live here - rents cap linked to average wages. See:
87 No overcrowding: Because of the location of the site, and the prevailing wind conditions which will cause huge problems to local residents, and should be avoided or strictly limited.
88 In London such As in Greenwich old Gas works have been transformed into lovely housing
89 The development on this site may put at risk the health of all the residents in the area, so in my opinion no houses should be built in there. A park and tidy up the area would be enough. Making money at the expense of people’s health should be prosecuted. Thanks.
90 Other gas work sites developed by Berkleygroup have proved toxic to local inhabitants when contaminated earth was disturbed. This should not happen again here in Brighton. Development should happen elsewhere .
91 The site is an eyesore. Social housing will lower the aesthetics of the Kemp Town estate. Make the area as up scale as possible.
92 Needs to be looked at in conjunction with the two North and South "book-end" sites, owned by BHCC. What are BHCC's plans for these sites? Also, the proposal to bridge over Marina Way to increase the space available and improved the appearance of the Marina Interchange, should be properly considered.
93 Q3 is impossible to answer as it's a question not a statement, suffice to say that any decontamination would need to take several years (as was done at the southern end of the site, which has necessitated many years of no disturbance post-work) - Q6 partly answers this point. Like Q1, the ranking in Q11 puts in a bias as it is so inflexible (ie options can't be rejected, nor considered in any integrated way, or caveats added, or unacceptable elements in any option/s removed), as such the ranking gradation needs to be treated with some caution.
94 The development MUST use top grade architects to avoid another blot on the landscape, as in the Marina development.
95 I am all for social housing or houses at affordable prices. Only I don't believe a site with seaview and proximity to the centre [illegible] transport accessible - this is achievable or it is the builders only dishonest argument in order to obtain planning permission. Locally the site should become and ecology / children's park in the middle or art gallery. (Brighton is the only seaside town who hasn't got one.) Plus a youth club so that young people can meet instead of hanging around bus stops or asda car park.
96 Consideration must be given to associated infrastructure, in particular, traffic and social transport needs and effects.
97 1) Contamination worries me deeply. 2) To avoid a gathering space for anti-social groups. 3) Have concern and consideration for neighboring properties/population.
98 We feel the St. William proposal represents a massive over-development of a relatively compact site. We fail to understand why BHCC has apparently considering this proposal when it conflicts with the councils own policies of suitable development for this particular site. Council guidelines/policies need to be adhered to otherwise there is no point in them, in our view other than making the council appear impotent.
99 Thanks for asking me
100 Get it done.
101 We have seen multiple massive developments on ex council and virtually no social housing or legacy remains from these builds, some of which are still ongoing. Also financially the risk of committing to the ‘wrong’ development will on lot exacerbate our current housing crisis in the city. All potential developers need serious scrutiny after the collapse of the construction company Henry in the middle of the Lewes Rd and Preston Park obscene developments!!!
102 Rendered white. Not brick or concrete please.
103 Art nouveau architecture
104 Definitely not on contaminated land nor near it. Need to be a low number of floors per building. No more than 5 floors.
105 We don't want any building
106 A rising tide lifts all boats...
107 The UK as a whole, and Brighton too, is in dire need of new homes. If this site is not developed it just increases the pressure to build on green belt. It’s well documented that conveniently located apartment blocks are key drivers to economic growth, to social mobility, and to resolving the housing crisis, and the NIMBYISM shown by groups likes AGHAST is astonishing. Even the name means you’ll always be seen as a biased source of opinion. I fully support the development as proposed.
108 A large development proposed would cause pollutants & be disastrous for the local community’s health in an area that is already blighted by some of the worse health inequalities in the UK
109 Contamination as in other gaswork site most worrying,maybe re do some of the empty building in Brighton and hove for social housing
110 I fully agree that the space should be used for housing. However, this must be done in a way that will add to the community not just be a faceless building where nobody lives.
111 The possible answers to question 3 did not really align with the question. My answer means that I do not trust the developer at all on the matter. And my preferred option in question 1 reflects my concern about whether the site can be safely decontaminated.
112 This Planning Application does not conform to Tall Buildings Policy of the Local Plan. It should be rejected on that basis alone.
113 Many thanks for taking these opinions into consideration
114 Preserve what we have , make it better work/live hub .. embrace the natural elements with have wind sea , green ... such an opportunity to make this site so natural and earthy and still have wood etc natural materials to build a eco housing project
115 Important that “alignment” with Regency urban fabric doesn’t mean imitation or “incorporating the Regency style”, which only devalues the original
116 Prefer minimal development at the southern end. Minimal soil disturbance disturbance so open space in the area of the gasometer....maybe some parking. Maybe a supermarket (maximum 3 storeys)
117 I would like to see the site developed at the moment it is a mess. I know we need more social housing and support this being included in plans
118 I did contact AGHAST about the possibility of a badger sett on the site but received no reply!
119 The key point is that any development should benefit the existing community in this part of the city, not overburden its streets with an excessive number of cars or put excess pressure on local infrastructure (schools, GPs, public transport).
120 What provision is there for neighbouring residents to mitigate for construction traffic, minimise noise and monitor and reduce airborne dust or gases?
121 I want Berkeley to listen to locals. Health is everything, and look at the trouble mitcham and Southall are having with their health. It is not right that huge corporations can just bulldoze in and change the air, the atmosphere and community of this area of brighton. This is our home!
122 This development will be inaccessible for first time buyers and/or local people. Preserve the current businesses, facilities and jobs. There is a school nearby, we are worried that in-consequence of this works they will be exposed to harmful substances and develop chronic diseases. Residents have their income tied in their properties, next to a big development they have small chance to sell and the value decreases.
123 Keep existing businesses on site
124 Very important to keep local businesses going on site as well as housing being developed
125 Leave site alone!
126 The current proposed plan for high rise high cost high density flats is completely inappropriate for this site. It won't address or alleviate the need for affordable local homes will not be supported by the local road infrastructure schools de tists or GP surgery's and is a clear attempt attempt by a large developer to pursue a profit driven agenda by packing as many high cost individual units into as small as space as possible to the detriment of the area and local community.