Cllr John Allcock - Objection to BH2021/02014

Palmer and Harvey House, 106-112 Davigdor Road, Hove

Erection of eight storey building on land to rear of P&H House comprising residential flats (C3) and commercial/office floorspace (Class E) at ground floor, with associated landscaping works. Proposal is for 39 flats

1. The proposed development would have an adverse effect on neighbourhood amenity.

With 8 floors and 39 flats, the excessive height and scale of the proposed development will result in an overbearing and significant harmful impact on the neighbourhood. Location and site characteristics require a development proposal that respects the Goldsmid neighbourhood amenity, community and residents' homes.

The proposed design is poor, and height of the development is inappropriate and overbearing in relation to Montefiore hospital and Preece House. This is not in line with City Plan policies. The hospital is locally listed as a heritage asset. The Council recognise Montefiore Hospital's architectural distinction and importance to the City.

I believe City Plan policies support the principle of preserving the setting of heritage assets and amenity of public spaces.

2. Access and egress from the site.

The increased traffic from the site is a major safety concern. There are several large developments under construction in the immediate area with limited access and egress. Reference: NPPF paragraphs 110 b) and 112 c) and City Plan policy DM33.

3. Affordable Homes

The local authority currently has approximately 7,500 people on the housing waiting list. Decent and truly affordable housing is in desperate need in the city and a priority for Brighton and Hove City Council. This development will do nothing to contribute to addressing the shortage of housing for local people.

A policy compliant scheme should provide 16 affordable homes on this development (based on 40% of 39 units). The committee report identifies that under S106 Heads of Terms Affordable Housing on-site provision of 7 Affordable Rent Units and 3 Shared Ownership Units or as a commuted sum in lieu of onsite provision. This falls well below the number of affordable homes required.

4. Local Consultation

The developers have been not undertaken any public pre-planning consultation with residents or ward Councillors. The developer and their consultants are not local and appear to have ignored the community in developing their plans.

In my view this proposal:

· Does nothing to ‘Raise the standard of architecture and design in the city.’

· Does not achieve: ‘excellence in sustainable building design and construction.’

· Does not: ‘enhance the city’s built and archaeological heritage and its settings;’ and

· Ignores the requirement to ‘Protect or enhance strategic views into, out of and within the city.’

· Does not provide the required level of affordable housing the city desperately needs

I would respectfully ask the committee to reject this application for the reasons outlined above.

Cllr John Allcock

29 October 2022