Anger as developers stall on building 828 homes in Brighton and Hove

There is a new for new homes in Brighton

There is a new for new homes in Brighton

First published in News
Last updated
by

DEVELOPERS have been urged to “get a move on” and build nearly a thousand homes given the go-ahead by planning chiefs.

A housing crisis in Brighton and Hove means more than 20,000 people are waiting for housing across the city – and the number is increasing each day.

Planning permission has been granted for 828 homes but building has yet to start and a further 1,510 homes given the green light have been started but are yet to be completed.

Developers have been accused of stalling developments in a bid to reap bigger profits as the housing market booms.

Andy Winter, chief executive of Brighton and Hove Housing Trust, said: “I am sure that there is a wide consensus that, given the housing crisis in Brighton, every opportunity should be taken to provide new homes for purchase and rent.

“If any developer is sitting on land waiting for prices to increase further in order to maximise their profits, my message to them would be: move over and let others deliver the homes we so urgently need in Brighton and Hove.”

Conservative councillor Lynda Hyde said: “It is good news that over 1,500 new homes will be coming on to the market in the near future but I would hope that developers can get building these additional 828 as soon as possible.

“Not least because the council has just put the city’s valuable green ‘urban fringe’ under threat by identifying sites there for a potential extra 1,200 new homes, which it says are necessary to placate the Government’s planning inspector.

“However, these 828 homes that already have planning permission are all on previously developed brownfield sites. We believe brownfield sites should always be developed wherever possible before greenfield ones are even considered.”

Brighton and Hove City Council did not want to comment on the figures – but advised that developers must commence construction within three years of being granted planning permission.

Labour leader Warren Morgan said his party was “fully in favour” of measures that ensured housing was built on brownfield sites.

He added: “That’s why Labour nationally have pledged to take action against developers hoarding land and I welcome the fact that the local Conservative group have recognised this as one of the issues behind our housing crisis.

“The Conservative government is all in favour of building more houses, but to benefit developers not those looking for affordable homes. We want to see more of these new houses going to local people on average or low incomes, not buy-to-rent landlords and people escaping soaring house prices in London.”

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:17am Fri 25 Jul 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Yes, yes, yes. Everyone agree we need more houses. Then as soon as a scheme is announced, whether it's greenfield or the re-development of an existing site (the nearest we can get to 'brownfield' in Brighton and Hove as we don't have wast swathes of derelict sites) someone complains.
Yes, yes, yes. Everyone agree we need more houses. Then as soon as a scheme is announced, whether it's greenfield or the re-development of an existing site (the nearest we can get to 'brownfield' in Brighton and Hove as we don't have wast swathes of derelict sites) someone complains. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 9

11:36am Fri 25 Jul 14

Fairfax Aches says...

What we need is all the social benefit scrounging feckless baby-churning families to get sterilised and then packed off somewhere far away.
What we need is all the social benefit scrounging feckless baby-churning families to get sterilised and then packed off somewhere far away. Fairfax Aches
  • Score: 44

12:38pm Fri 25 Jul 14

nosolution says...

Nothing wrong with building on brownfield sites however the article clearly illustrates how greedy developers try to maximise profits day in day out by stalling developments waiting for upwards price movements and reducing room sizes to battery houses standard. This is why they greatly favour greenfield which have far lower land purchase prices and cheaper contruction costs...
Nothing wrong with building on brownfield sites however the article clearly illustrates how greedy developers try to maximise profits day in day out by stalling developments waiting for upwards price movements and reducing room sizes to battery houses standard. This is why they greatly favour greenfield which have far lower land purchase prices and cheaper contruction costs... nosolution
  • Score: 10

12:38pm Fri 25 Jul 14

NickBtn says...

Planning is difficult to get in Brighton - particularly for brownfield sites. Many applications will need amendments/appeals to get an approval. Also getting an approval takes a random amount of time. The planning department is far from easy to deal with. So no developer can be sure when (or if) approval will be given. Once it is, they can then start to get builders lined up and also to deal with Building Regulations (again random time but 2+ months)

So the council and it's planning/building regulations teams are behind lots of these delays. These teams should be properly resourced and run effectively - that way more homes will be built speedily. I don't think that many developers are waiting for prices to increase as the article suggests (as many reports quote a crash), more that they are waiting/delayed by council bureaucracy...
Planning is difficult to get in Brighton - particularly for brownfield sites. Many applications will need amendments/appeals to get an approval. Also getting an approval takes a random amount of time. The planning department is far from easy to deal with. So no developer can be sure when (or if) approval will be given. Once it is, they can then start to get builders lined up and also to deal with Building Regulations (again random time but 2+ months) So the council and it's planning/building regulations teams are behind lots of these delays. These teams should be properly resourced and run effectively - that way more homes will be built speedily. I don't think that many developers are waiting for prices to increase as the article suggests (as many reports quote a crash), more that they are waiting/delayed by council bureaucracy... NickBtn
  • Score: 11

1:06pm Fri 25 Jul 14

s_james says...

There will never be enough brownfield sites in Brighton to meet demand, although I totally agree that those that do exist shoudl eb used first where possible. Interesting that Warren Morgan is so in favour of brownfield sites when his party is delaying the City Plan, thereby opening up the whole greenfield urban fringe to a developer’s free for all under the NPPF
There will never be enough brownfield sites in Brighton to meet demand, although I totally agree that those that do exist shoudl eb used first where possible. Interesting that Warren Morgan is so in favour of brownfield sites when his party is delaying the City Plan, thereby opening up the whole greenfield urban fringe to a developer’s free for all under the NPPF s_james
  • Score: 5

2:03pm Fri 25 Jul 14

MegA69 says...

BHCC planning department is the biggest obstacle to getting the extra houses we need in this town. Why develop in Brighton when there are so many other places that are more profitable and do not involve an obstructive, inefficient, corrupt council. BHCC imposes ridiculous, costly, unnecessary constraints on developers (like mandatory CSH level 4 and outrageous time delays). Haven’t they worked out that developers will only develop if projects are viable? Sort out the corruption and inefficiency in planning and this city stands a chance of becoming the city it should be.
BHCC planning department is the biggest obstacle to getting the extra houses we need in this town. Why develop in Brighton when there are so many other places that are more profitable and do not involve an obstructive, inefficient, corrupt council. BHCC imposes ridiculous, costly, unnecessary constraints on developers (like mandatory CSH level 4 and outrageous time delays). Haven’t they worked out that developers will only develop if projects are viable? Sort out the corruption and inefficiency in planning and this city stands a chance of becoming the city it should be. MegA69
  • Score: 7

2:09pm Fri 25 Jul 14

MegA69 says...

NickBtn wrote:
Planning is difficult to get in Brighton - particularly for brownfield sites. Many applications will need amendments/appeals to get an approval. Also getting an approval takes a random amount of time. The planning department is far from easy to deal with. So no developer can be sure when (or if) approval will be given. Once it is, they can then start to get builders lined up and also to deal with Building Regulations (again random time but 2+ months)

So the council and it's planning/building regulations teams are behind lots of these delays. These teams should be properly resourced and run effectively - that way more homes will be built speedily. I don't think that many developers are waiting for prices to increase as the article suggests (as many reports quote a crash), more that they are waiting/delayed by council bureaucracy...
Could not agree more. As part of a consortium of small/medium scale developers we will not develop any of the land we own in Brighton until the planning department undergoes a massive overhaul and clear out of corrupt and inefficient officials. We are called “land grabbers riding the market”. We are not; it is just that the council is a liability to do business with and not worth the risk. We are much better off letting the land sit.
[quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: Planning is difficult to get in Brighton - particularly for brownfield sites. Many applications will need amendments/appeals to get an approval. Also getting an approval takes a random amount of time. The planning department is far from easy to deal with. So no developer can be sure when (or if) approval will be given. Once it is, they can then start to get builders lined up and also to deal with Building Regulations (again random time but 2+ months) So the council and it's planning/building regulations teams are behind lots of these delays. These teams should be properly resourced and run effectively - that way more homes will be built speedily. I don't think that many developers are waiting for prices to increase as the article suggests (as many reports quote a crash), more that they are waiting/delayed by council bureaucracy...[/p][/quote]Could not agree more. As part of a consortium of small/medium scale developers we will not develop any of the land we own in Brighton until the planning department undergoes a massive overhaul and clear out of corrupt and inefficient officials. We are called “land grabbers riding the market”. We are not; it is just that the council is a liability to do business with and not worth the risk. We are much better off letting the land sit. MegA69
  • Score: 5

3:43pm Fri 25 Jul 14

brighton bluenose says...

MegA69 wrote:
NickBtn wrote:
Planning is difficult to get in Brighton - particularly for brownfield sites. Many applications will need amendments/appeals to get an approval. Also getting an approval takes a random amount of time. The planning department is far from easy to deal with. So no developer can be sure when (or if) approval will be given. Once it is, they can then start to get builders lined up and also to deal with Building Regulations (again random time but 2+ months)

So the council and it's planning/building regulations teams are behind lots of these delays. These teams should be properly resourced and run effectively - that way more homes will be built speedily. I don't think that many developers are waiting for prices to increase as the article suggests (as many reports quote a crash), more that they are waiting/delayed by council bureaucracy...
Could not agree more. As part of a consortium of small/medium scale developers we will not develop any of the land we own in Brighton until the planning department undergoes a massive overhaul and clear out of corrupt and inefficient officials. We are called “land grabbers riding the market”. We are not; it is just that the council is a liability to do business with and not worth the risk. We are much better off letting the land sit.
Perhaps you could clarify in a broad way on the accusation that the planning department is corrupt'?! As for inefficient I would hazard a guess that they are overworked and overstressed with too much to do with too little manpower - rather like many other council departments!
[quote][p][bold]MegA69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: Planning is difficult to get in Brighton - particularly for brownfield sites. Many applications will need amendments/appeals to get an approval. Also getting an approval takes a random amount of time. The planning department is far from easy to deal with. So no developer can be sure when (or if) approval will be given. Once it is, they can then start to get builders lined up and also to deal with Building Regulations (again random time but 2+ months) So the council and it's planning/building regulations teams are behind lots of these delays. These teams should be properly resourced and run effectively - that way more homes will be built speedily. I don't think that many developers are waiting for prices to increase as the article suggests (as many reports quote a crash), more that they are waiting/delayed by council bureaucracy...[/p][/quote]Could not agree more. As part of a consortium of small/medium scale developers we will not develop any of the land we own in Brighton until the planning department undergoes a massive overhaul and clear out of corrupt and inefficient officials. We are called “land grabbers riding the market”. We are not; it is just that the council is a liability to do business with and not worth the risk. We are much better off letting the land sit.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you could clarify in a broad way on the accusation that the planning department is corrupt'?! As for inefficient I would hazard a guess that they are overworked and overstressed with too much to do with too little manpower - rather like many other council departments! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -6

4:20pm Fri 25 Jul 14

rolivan says...

Why would developers want to wait surely they would prefer to build and sell and go again.
Why would developers want to wait surely they would prefer to build and sell and go again. rolivan
  • Score: 5

5:22pm Fri 25 Jul 14

rogerthefish says...

MegA69 wrote:
BHCC planning department is the biggest obstacle to getting the extra houses we need in this town. Why develop in Brighton when there are so many other places that are more profitable and do not involve an obstructive, inefficient, corrupt council. BHCC imposes ridiculous, costly, unnecessary constraints on developers (like mandatory CSH level 4 and outrageous time delays). Haven’t they worked out that developers will only develop if projects are viable? Sort out the corruption and inefficiency in planning and this city stands a chance of becoming the city it should be.
There is something odd going on in the council a friend has natural space for a house and despite no objections from neighbours he is still waiting 16 months for approval and has heard that you have to find a council "friendly" architect from a few sources..
[quote][p][bold]MegA69[/bold] wrote: BHCC planning department is the biggest obstacle to getting the extra houses we need in this town. Why develop in Brighton when there are so many other places that are more profitable and do not involve an obstructive, inefficient, corrupt council. BHCC imposes ridiculous, costly, unnecessary constraints on developers (like mandatory CSH level 4 and outrageous time delays). Haven’t they worked out that developers will only develop if projects are viable? Sort out the corruption and inefficiency in planning and this city stands a chance of becoming the city it should be.[/p][/quote]There is something odd going on in the council a friend has natural space for a house and despite no objections from neighbours he is still waiting 16 months for approval and has heard that you have to find a council "friendly" architect from a few sources.. rogerthefish
  • Score: 2

5:37pm Fri 25 Jul 14

MegA69 says...

rogerthefish wrote:
MegA69 wrote:
BHCC planning department is the biggest obstacle to getting the extra houses we need in this town. Why develop in Brighton when there are so many other places that are more profitable and do not involve an obstructive, inefficient, corrupt council. BHCC imposes ridiculous, costly, unnecessary constraints on developers (like mandatory CSH level 4 and outrageous time delays). Haven’t they worked out that developers will only develop if projects are viable? Sort out the corruption and inefficiency in planning and this city stands a chance of becoming the city it should be.
There is something odd going on in the council a friend has natural space for a house and despite no objections from neighbours he is still waiting 16 months for approval and has heard that you have to find a council "friendly" architect from a few sources..
Brown paper envelopes work well in this town..... and have done for many years
[quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MegA69[/bold] wrote: BHCC planning department is the biggest obstacle to getting the extra houses we need in this town. Why develop in Brighton when there are so many other places that are more profitable and do not involve an obstructive, inefficient, corrupt council. BHCC imposes ridiculous, costly, unnecessary constraints on developers (like mandatory CSH level 4 and outrageous time delays). Haven’t they worked out that developers will only develop if projects are viable? Sort out the corruption and inefficiency in planning and this city stands a chance of becoming the city it should be.[/p][/quote]There is something odd going on in the council a friend has natural space for a house and despite no objections from neighbours he is still waiting 16 months for approval and has heard that you have to find a council "friendly" architect from a few sources..[/p][/quote]Brown paper envelopes work well in this town..... and have done for many years MegA69
  • Score: 5

6:17pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Mimi1544 says...

When can we finally say "enough is enough, we're full"
Why keep building houses? Go find somewhere else to live. There are enough empty homes in others towns/cities.
The south east is too full!! If you were born in the cities hospital then you have a priority to live there, if not then look somewhere else.
I really worry for my two young son's futures.
When can we finally say "enough is enough, we're full" Why keep building houses? Go find somewhere else to live. There are enough empty homes in others towns/cities. The south east is too full!! If you were born in the cities hospital then you have a priority to live there, if not then look somewhere else. I really worry for my two young son's futures. Mimi1544
  • Score: 8

9:24pm Fri 25 Jul 14

HJarrs says...

MegA69 wrote:
NickBtn wrote:
Planning is difficult to get in Brighton - particularly for brownfield sites. Many applications will need amendments/appeals to get an approval. Also getting an approval takes a random amount of time. The planning department is far from easy to deal with. So no developer can be sure when (or if) approval will be given. Once it is, they can then start to get builders lined up and also to deal with Building Regulations (again random time but 2+ months)

So the council and it's planning/building regulations teams are behind lots of these delays. These teams should be properly resourced and run effectively - that way more homes will be built speedily. I don't think that many developers are waiting for prices to increase as the article suggests (as many reports quote a crash), more that they are waiting/delayed by council bureaucracy...
Could not agree more. As part of a consortium of small/medium scale developers we will not develop any of the land we own in Brighton until the planning department undergoes a massive overhaul and clear out of corrupt and inefficient officials. We are called “land grabbers riding the market”. We are not; it is just that the council is a liability to do business with and not worth the risk. We are much better off letting the land sit.
Developer complains about planners shocker.

If you read the article the properties not built already have planning permission. Goodness knows what dire buildings you wish to saddle the city with given your comments.
[quote][p][bold]MegA69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: Planning is difficult to get in Brighton - particularly for brownfield sites. Many applications will need amendments/appeals to get an approval. Also getting an approval takes a random amount of time. The planning department is far from easy to deal with. So no developer can be sure when (or if) approval will be given. Once it is, they can then start to get builders lined up and also to deal with Building Regulations (again random time but 2+ months) So the council and it's planning/building regulations teams are behind lots of these delays. These teams should be properly resourced and run effectively - that way more homes will be built speedily. I don't think that many developers are waiting for prices to increase as the article suggests (as many reports quote a crash), more that they are waiting/delayed by council bureaucracy...[/p][/quote]Could not agree more. As part of a consortium of small/medium scale developers we will not develop any of the land we own in Brighton until the planning department undergoes a massive overhaul and clear out of corrupt and inefficient officials. We are called “land grabbers riding the market”. We are not; it is just that the council is a liability to do business with and not worth the risk. We are much better off letting the land sit.[/p][/quote]Developer complains about planners shocker. If you read the article the properties not built already have planning permission. Goodness knows what dire buildings you wish to saddle the city with given your comments. HJarrs
  • Score: -2

10:24pm Fri 25 Jul 14

stevo!! . says...

No doubt these houses will be used to house immigrant families of 10 at the taxpayers expense.
Vote UKIP.
No doubt these houses will be used to house immigrant families of 10 at the taxpayers expense. Vote UKIP. stevo!! .
  • Score: -8

1:20am Sat 26 Jul 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

...and the bottom line is?
Too many greedy, self entitled, scumbags on either end of the political or economic spectrum to allow any system to ever work.
Down-regulate rent and collect tax from the scum still evading HMRC or we're all going down the pan.
...and the bottom line is? Too many greedy, self entitled, scumbags on either end of the political or economic spectrum to allow any system to ever work. Down-regulate rent and collect tax from the scum still evading HMRC or we're all going down the pan. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: -1

7:26pm Sat 26 Jul 14

KarenT says...

nosolution wrote:
Nothing wrong with building on brownfield sites however the article clearly illustrates how greedy developers try to maximise profits day in day out by stalling developments waiting for upwards price movements and reducing room sizes to battery houses standard. This is why they greatly favour greenfield which have far lower land purchase prices and cheaper contruction costs...
Hmmm.... never realised housing developers were supposed to be altruistic earth angels out to make the world a better place. Was Mother Teresa a housing developer?
[quote][p][bold]nosolution[/bold] wrote: Nothing wrong with building on brownfield sites however the article clearly illustrates how greedy developers try to maximise profits day in day out by stalling developments waiting for upwards price movements and reducing room sizes to battery houses standard. This is why they greatly favour greenfield which have far lower land purchase prices and cheaper contruction costs...[/p][/quote]Hmmm.... never realised housing developers were supposed to be altruistic earth angels out to make the world a better place. Was Mother Teresa a housing developer? KarenT
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree