Daylight wasting

9:38am Tuesday 10th July 2007

From press reports it appears the Conservatives on the Brighton and Hove City Council have signalled a U-turn and are supporting the Karis redevelopment of the King Alfred.

Before the election they strongly opposed the scheme, for good reasons.

It will have a devastating effect on day-lighting and sun-lighting in surrounding homes and streets, with deep shadows engulfing the area during the dark days of winter.

When the Tories were elected, their leader Brian Oxley indicated it was important to prevent the development going ahead so as to protect the wards abutting the King Alfred.

Now less than two months after the election, the Conservative group is not prepared to stand by its convictions, feigning instead that a contract with Karis prevents the planning application being refused.

The Greens, by being prepared to do absolutely nothing, are complicit with the Conservatives.

Before the election they opposed the planning application. Now, quite simply, the Greens do not want to get involved despite the scheme's poor green credentials.

On March 23, by the casting vote of the chair, Brighton and Hove City Council resolved that it was "minded to grant consent" to the Frank Gehry scheme for the King Alfred site. The application was strongly opposed by the Conservative and Green members of the sub-committee. The meeting had been arranged hurriedly to take place before the local elections.

Following an unopposed resolution at its AGM, the Regency Society of Brighton and Hove took counsel's advice. His clear advice was that the resolution was not a grant of consent and that the city council could look again at the application, particularly in the light of the election of a new council. It was possible to come to a different decision if there were proper planning grounds.

The society has shared this advice with the leader of the council and with the Green Party. We have also submitted a detailed case showing the flaws in the original decision. We have asked for the case to be reopened and a new decision made refusing consent, which the applicants could challenge on appeal or which could form a basis for new negotiations.

Our action was endorsed and supported by the Hove Civic Society.

We now read that the leader of the council is prepared to support the present scheme. His own ward would be seriously affected by the new development and he campaigned against it. So serious would be the impact, even one of the Labour councillors who voted for the application has since openly declared her doubts about it on local radio.

So we are left with a plan that would result in 13-storey buildings being 17 metres from existing flats, a collection of buildings described by the council's own expert day-lighting adviser as the worst scheme he had seen and a proposal that would not meet the council's own sustainability tests. It has been suggested that the new Conservative administration has no alternative but to accept the scheme for legal reasons. The development agreement makes it clear this is not the case and if, as rumoured, there is an undeclared contract, it could not constrain the objective exercise of the council's planning powers.

So what are residents to make of all this? The supporters of the scheme were soundly beaten at the elections and the new administration declines to put matters right. Both the Conservative and Green parties are making much of their green credentials. No wonder people lose faith in politics and politicians.

The guiding principle of the Regency Society in this case, is to see the King Alfred site developed in a sustainable and neighbourly way.

• Dr Michael Ray, chairman, Regency Society of Brighton and Hove, Brangwyn Drive, Brighton

Editor's Choice