A development with towers up to 160-foot tall overlooking a historic park has been rejected.
The Anston House site in Preston Road, Brighton, has been derelict for nearly 25 years.
Urban Splash and Investec bank hoped its plans would help ease the housing crisis and provide space for the city's growing digital sector.
But, after hundreds of locals said they feared the development would overshadow nearby Preston Park, Brighton and Hove City Council's planning committee rejected the scheme at its meeting today (April 24).
It is not known if the developer will appeal the plans to the Government planning inspector, which could leave the council with a legal bill.
Conservative councillor Lynda Hyde said she felt, if approved it would set a precedent.
She added: “This is one of the most difficult applications we have had to consider but I do think it's too big, it's too tall and too far forward.”
But Labour councillor Bob Carden said: “I'm torn as every blinking application we turn around and throw it out.
“We do not want to build anything in this city.
“Maybe it's a little bit high but we definitely have to start getting this town moving.”
The scheme was rejected after a two-hour debate with four councillors for, five against and three abstentions.
The decision was taken after a 15 minute adjournment of the meeting after planning committee chairman Chris Hawtree claimed groups from both sides had been “flouting the system” to lobby members just hours before casting their votes.
Affordable homes
The proposal for the area once dubbed the “ugliest building in Sussex” was for 231 homes and more than 2,000sqm of office space with 158 car and 240 cycle parking spaces.
The five buildings will be between seven and 15 storeys tall.
However, because the developer said only 30% of the homes were affordable – below the council's 40% guide – the local authority said work must start within two years.
Speaking at the meeting, Mark Latham, of Urban Splash, said: “We believe Brighton deserves the best and passionately believe this is what we're doing here.”
But William Shaw, who helped collect nearly 400 signatures against the scheme, said: “It's poor design, it's cramming and appalling space allocation.”
Look elsewhere
Ward councillor Leo Littman said: “I know this site has been derelict for decades. This does not mean that we have to go with it.
“If they [Urban Splash] genuinely cannot find a way to do this without turning a profit, let's turn to someone who can.”
James Breckell, of the Conservation Advisory Group, which is made up of conservation groups in the city, said: “We felt it should never have got this far. But we see a building born out of meeting targets, not promoting good architecture.
“The developer has a history of delivering good schemes in the north of England. So why has it dropped its standards when it came to Brighton?”
A decision was supposed to have been taken earlier this month.
However this was delayed after concerns were raised over an overshadowing report.
See the latest news headlines from The Argus:
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel