Brighton Station Site: it's not a done deal

In September 2001, the New England Consortium (NEC) lodged with the Council its most recent proposals to develop the 13-acre site around Brighton Station. The NEC is princip-ally, the land-owners Railtrack, QED and JS Developments for Sainsbury's.

To date the Council has made no moves to hold a public exhibition of these plans, perhaps hoping that it can avoid engaging with any opposition to them. The only chance for local people to discuss the development proposal in an open forum was provided by BUDD. It held a meeting in October, when over 200 people from all over Brighton gathered to hear David Rudlin from URBED (design consultants for the NEC), Cllr. Keith Taylor and others debate it. The vast majority expressed concerns about the application as it stands. The meeting had been well publicised thanks to The Leader, which is delivered to some 84,000 homes and ran it as the lead story. Supporters of the scheme had every opportunity to attend, yet no one present at the meeting voted in favour of it going ahead in its present form. Whatever 'spin' is put on it, this development continues to be controversial and unwanted, and many local people feel that it is being foisted on them against their will.

The current scheme

Both the application and the Planning Brief on which it is based claim that the site - one of the most important brownfield sites on the South Coast - will be an 'exemplar of 21st-century urban development'. Since it has been so controversial and high-profile, what happens here can act as an inspiration to others - or undermine attempts to encourage more sustainable development elsewhere in the country.

The NEC plans include a 2,322 m2 (net) supermarket with 194 space car park; 261 new homes; 360 'key worker bedspace' apartments; 2 hotels (one four and one three star); a training centre to be operated by the Council; a language school with student accommodation; a health and fitness centre; office space; and a small community space. BUDD believes that cities such as Brighton and Hove deserve better than such an old-fashioned, corporate-led and car-centred development. Over the page we explain our concerns. If you agree, please take action. This is not a done deal. Remember the debate about the elected mayor? There, too, an undemocratic and unwanted scheme looked as if it would be imposed on local people but was defeated - so could this.

Local residents and experts express concerns

Following several meetings, including a presentation by Chris Gilbert of QED, the North Laine Community Association told the Council that it has 'serious reservations' about the scheme, concerning: traffic; pedestrian links with the site; townscape; the hotels; housing; social provision; and aesthetics.

The NLCA was the only amenity group represented on the Working Group set up by the Council last year to produce a new Planning Brief for the site. The council has made much of the fact that the NLCA did not object to the Planning Brief, and the developers have implied that local residents therefore support their proposals. It is now a matter of record that this is not the case - a fact the council should recognise. Other key groups have also expressed concerns about the development: for instance, CAAG (the Conservation Area Advisory Group), the Brighton Society and the Architects' Panel have all commented negatively on the development's likely impact on the townscape.

Call to action

You can visit the developers' website - www.new-england-quarter.co.uk (and then e-mail them your comments) - or look at the plans in the Council Offices at Bartholomew House or Hove Town Hall. If you are concerned about the proposals for the site, and if you care about what happens there, it is essential that you write to the council with your comments.

Address your letters to Paul Vidler, Principal Planning Officer, Brighton and Hove Council, Hove Town Hall, Norton Road, Hove BN3 4AH. At the time of writing, the application is due to be considered at a special meeting of the Planning Applications Sub Committee in late February.

BUDD will be requesting a 'call-in' from the Secretary of State on the grounds explained in this newsletter. The Secretary of State for the Environment can have any application decided at a Public Inquiry, if it is controversial, or if it contradicts local or national planning policy.

BUDD's objections to the proposal...

Inadequate Housing

One of the biggest problems facing residents is that of finding decent, affordable places to live or rent. There are 15,000 households in housing need locally. Soaring property prices and speculative purchases - in an area where weekly wages are lower than the national average1 - mean many local people have been priced out of the market2.

The New England Consortium (NEC) development includes 261 units of accommodation - less than the 270 minimum set by the Planning Brief, and far less than its proposed 400 maximum. 30% of this will be affordable housing; BUDD welcomes this element but regrets that the Council's own target of 40% affordable housing for new developments is not met. In addition the plans propose 360 student-style 'bedspaces' (up to 6 people in bedsits sharing a kitchen) for 'key workers' in essential but low-waged public services, such as teachers, nurses and police. Such arrangements won't meet the real needs of such workers and their families and seem a disrespectful way for a city to treat those who keep its most vital services running. The property press has recently suggested that in any case they may eventually be converted and sold off privately.

Traffic

Although the housing and hotel elements have relatively little parking associated with them, the scheme is overall traffic-generating and car-centred. The experts paid by the NEC inaccurately claim that the site will have 'only' an extra 150 car parking spaces overall; in fact there will be an extra 350. They suggest that traffic pollution will be no worse than in 2000. But this assumes that vehicles will adopt new technologies and has nothing to do with their own plans. Even so, pollutants will increase by up to 35% and an extra 10,000 tons of CO2 will be released into the atmosphere from the supermarket car park alone.

The NEC further argues that traffic overall will be reduced because people will no longer travel to out of town stores. However, the supermarket alone will generate AT LEAST 1500 daily round trips (3,000 individual journeys) in this area - which is already choked with traffic. All these cars - and massive delivery lorries - are meant to use just TWO main access routes, New England Street/New England Road and Cheapside. The knock-on effect of this on surrounding areas especially the North Laine has not been properly considered.

The NEC's plans are all aimed at promoting the free flow of traffic rather than putting the needs of pedestrians and cyclists first. They focus on re-routing a short stretch of New England Street through the site and removing parking spaces in New England Street to make way for an extra lane of traffic. Sustainable transport consultants have slated the plans for making no mention of car clubs or car share schemes for the housing, or of 'Home Zones' and 20mph speed limits that give priority to pedestrians.

In St Peter's and Seven Dials areas, 47% and 55% of households have no car - far higher than the national figure. The entrance to the supermarket for both cars and delivery lorries will be right opposite St Bart's primary school. So local people near the development, especially children, must bear the noise, pollution, danger and degradation of life caused by the car use of others.

There will be no bus access to the site, since the bus company has no plans to divert routes from the London Road. Bus users with limited mobility will have to climb the steep Ann Street if they want to shop at Sainsbury's, rather than having a range of outlets available on level access, as now. Home delivery services will not benefit anyone who spends less than £25 a time. Meanwhile the London Road - where 60% of shoppers arrive by means other than the private car - risks being undermined.

Employment and retail impact

The developers claim that up to 1,000 jobs will be created by this scheme. But they don't tell us who these jobs will be for - jobs for professionals migrating from London, or that are part-time and low-waged, won't address local employment needs. Nor do they mention how many jobs will be destroyed elsewhere. Government research shows that there is always a net job loss when superstores open, as other shops - most likely small businesses that provide more employment for their turnover ratio - are forced to close4. We have already seen the effect of the Vogue Gyratory Sainsbury's on shops in the Lewes Road, or Churchill Square on Western Road.

Visual impact and lack of public space

Brighton and Hove has many examples of fantastic architecture that provide pleasure to residents and visitors alike; so we know what a huge difference the look and feel of a local area can make to its success. There are three listed buildings near the site - the station, St. Bartholomews' Church and the railway bridge over New England Road. The Planning Inspector's 1998 report on Sainsbury's previous application held that its negative impact on the church was a major reason why the Council was right to refuse it.

Expert groups have already been critical of the ugly design of the buildings, which captures little of the spirit of Brighton and does not respect the church. The application seems to squeeze as much as possible onto the site and to resemble the intimidating and unwelcoming Trafalgar Place development. It includes many eight storey buildings - 20-30 metres high - grouped around relatively narrow streets and squares. So the areas where people are meant to shop, walk, sit, play and work may be windy, dark and cold. And it's not clear who will run what so-called 'public spaces' exist - they may well become corporate-controlled deserts, robbed of the diversity and vitality that make up the soul of a city.

Meanwhile Seven Dials has the second highest density of population per hectare in Brighton5. We need more public spaces - particularly child-friendly ones - not more shops and capppuccino bars.

Community Interests Ignored

Amidst this profit opportunity, the developers are offering local people what is called 'planning gain' - the old ticketing office on New England Street. They claim that this is an asset around which a 'community development trust' will grow - but it is more like a liability. This is a derelict building that probably cannot be restored, in an area that amounts to less than 2% of the site, for which 'the community' will have to find the money to make anything happen.

It has been shown again and again that positive and lasting community initiatives need to grow 'from below' rather than being imposed from above.

Given that the Council has squandered the goodwill and energy of the hundreds of people who contributed to its own Community Planning Event in 1999 and other public events about the site's future, there are little grounds for hope that this Trust will take root.

The London Road already serves an important community and rightly calls itself 'the people's shopping centre'. But it is likely that the area will have to go upmarket to survive - providing specialist goods and expensive restaurants to those who can afford to purchase the private housing on the site. The needs of those in 'the community' who are non-car owners, those with limited mobility or on lower incomes, haven't been properly considered by either the developers or the Council.

Does the application meet the requirements of the Planning Brief?

The Planning Brief was approved by the Council in 2000. It lays out the permissible uses for the site - of which the decision to allow a supermarket was the most controv-ersial and opposed by many members of the public. Membership of the Council Working Group on the Brief was weighted towards the interests of the developers and the New England Consortium (NEC) was invited to give a presentation to the Group early on in its deliberations. Even so, the developers haven't respected what the Brief asks for - see the table below.

"We don't need another supermarket"

That's what most people say. But it's also the verdict of the Council's own consultants, Drivers Jonas, who produced a report on retail capacity in Brighton and Hove in 1998. They concluded that there was 'no quantitative need' for a supermarket (that is, that there are enough already).

In a letter to the Leader dated 29/9/00, the Council leader described the supermarket as "essential" in order to pay for the development. This is incorrect, since there are alternatives (see below). But government planning guidance - as well as social justice - suggests that development should fulfil real needs; if retail uses have only been included in this scheme to attract developers, it goes against planning guidance6 and should be completely reconsidered.

There ARE alternatives:

BUDD has shown over the years that there are more sustainable alternatives that would respect the wishes of the vast majority of local people. For instance, local architects RH Partnerships showed that a housing-led scheme would be viable. Bioregional Development Group, award-winning developers of the 'BedZed' zero-energy housing estate in Sutton attempted to interest the Council in their ideas for the site. The Council's own consultants even put forward an alternative scheme without a supermarket as part of the Public Inquiry into the previous application!

Sources of information
1 NES table E15 1999 - average gross weekly income in GB is £400, in the SE £423 and in Brighton £352.40)
2 The Evening Argus, 7/2/01, and the Brighton and Hove City Private Sector Housing Forum manifesto.
3 Estates Gazette, 7/2/01.
4 DETR report 1998
5 Census 1991 figures.
6 (PPG6, 1996, 3.24)

Consult and insult: a travesty of process

People from all walks of life and backgrounds value Brighton and Hove's reputation as a quirky, non-conformist place that nurtures diverse talents, subcultures and movements. So it's not surprising that they have expressed their views on the future of this prime gateway site again and again; they don't want it to be dominated by faceless chains and corporate interests and they don't want a supermarket and its associated parking there.

What they do want is:

• l imaginative development that reflects Brighton's special character
• l development that unites the community rather than divides it
• l development that creates homes and jobs and meets people's needs
• l a sustainable future in an area not dominated by the car

Instead of welcoming local people's interest in the future of their city, Council has responded by belittling objectors as ignorant and mis-informed and trying to 'spin' their concerns out of existence.

It has used the façade of consultation to ignore the consistent demand of the public opinion it expressly sought. In 1999, it ran a three-day planning event, attended by 500 people and costing £50,000. Yet again, there was near unanimity against a superstore. The Council then decided to develop a planning brief by setting up a "consultative' working group in which it decided who should participate, the terms of reference, the final report and even whether dissent could be recorded. A Planning Brief in support of the controversial store duly emerged. A thousand postcards and signatures opposing the Brief were counted as just one letter of protest.

Such perverse outcomes undermine public faith in 'consultation' and in local democracy, suggesting that Councils would rather appease outside business interests than listen to the people they are meant to represent.

They also damage the future of cities. Successful urban areas can't be produced by designers and architects alone - they need genuine community participation and democratic engagement.

See Cities for the Many Not the Few, A. Amin, D. Massey, N. Thrift, Policy Press 2000

A Brief History of BUDD and the station site…

There have been previous plans for office developments on the land over the years, but the current idea of a superstore first surfaced with Sainsbury's planning application in 1997. The proposal then was for a 5,740 sq m gross (3,530 sq. m net) superstore and a 325-space car park around it, along with some business uses and a paltry 50 new houses. It created a public uproar and led to the coming together of concerned community members and traders in opposition. At this point the Council refused it planning permission, and this decision was upheld after a Public Inquiry in 1998. BUDD was formed in 1997 to oppose the Sainsburys plan and formulate alternatives. It aims to stimulate, encourage and initiate sustainable urban design and development through an inclusive participatory process, to combat social exclusion and to generate schemes that integrate social, cultural, environmental and economic benefits to Brighton and Hove.

It contributed to the Public Inquiry in 1998, organised petitions / postcard campaigns and public rallies and demonstrations. It also produced the Brighton New Laine concept paper on alternatives to the Sainsbury's scheme, has run a series of public meetings stimulating debate about sustainable and democratic urban development, and has encouraged other developers to put forward more imaginative proposals.

How you can help BUDD…

Sainsbury's, Railtrack and our own Brighton and Hove Council are well-resourced organisations with departmental budgets and paid staff. BUDD relies entirely on the voluntary contributions of time and skills of those involved. Campaigning is expensive, but we do not have much spare capacity to divert to fundraising activities at the moment. We would be grateful if you would contribute a small amount - perhaps £10 (£5 if you are poorer, more if you can manage it) to help support the costs of organising meetings, printing, postage and so on. That will be a great help.

Please make cheques out to BUDD, and send them to:
BUDD
PO Box 108
Brighton
BN1 4XN

Please include your name, address, phone and/or email details so that we can stay in touch.

If you can't send money don't worry. Whatever you can do is a valuable contribution, whether it's writing to the Council, running campaign stalls, helping out at socials, feeding in information, keeping in touch with other organisations, spreading the word, and many other ways.

BUDD Meeting dates

Currently BUDD holds meetings on the first and / or third Wednesdays of the month, at the Church of the Annunciation in Washington Street, Hanover, at 7.45pm.
You are very welcome to attend - but please call first to confirm the correct date and time.

• TOP •