Frost Cars’ nine-storey development in Shoreham turned down

PLANNERS have turned down proposals for 183 homes in Shoreham.

The Adur District Council Planning Committee considered the proposals for 69-75 Brighton Road, currently home to Frosts Cars, at its meeting on Wednesday (28 September).

But it was the second portside development to be rejected this month over concerns about the scale of proposals being tabled in the area.

A development review of the western arm of the harbor has been promised and details will be heard by the planning committee on Monday (October 3).

Visuals show the interior of the proposed Frosts Cars development on Brighton Road

Shoreham Brighton Road Limited’s proposals included 183 apartments in four blocks ranging in height from four to nine stories, with space for seven shops on the ground floor.

In a turnaround, the developer would have provided 55 affordable housing after partnering with the Vivid Housing Association.

The plans also included repairs to the seawall; Space for a new shared footpath and cycle path on the A259; and 81 parking spaces.

However, concerns about air quality, parking, the scale of the development and the number of proposed apartments led to rejection.

Visuals show the proposed Frosts Cars development from Brighton Rd

Visuals show the proposed Frosts Cars development from Brighton Rd

Around 30 people commented on the latest drafts and 125 comments on previous proposals.

The local strength of sentiment was evident during Wednesday’s planning meeting.

Kim Matthews, a retired geography teacher, expressed serious concern about flooding from multiple directions due to breaches in defenses.

The development is planned for the Frosts Cars Shoreham branch, image by Google

The development is planned for the Frosts Cars Shoreham branch, image by Google

Meanwhile, Bill Freeman of Adur Residents Environmental Action (AREA) said: “AREA is firmly opposed to this nine-story development which will further ruin the character of Shoreham-by-Sea.

“Make no mistake, the community is beyond angered by what this development and those already approved along the harbor are doing to this delightful seaside town.

“Why do we have to accept these massive buildings?”

Julia Watts (Ind), Councilwoman for the Marine District, said: “I think we have a duty to existing residents and this development is likely to be a very bad neighbor.

“While I appreciate that the developers have made some efforts to address community criticism and now we have 30 percent affordable housing, the provision of parking with 81 unassigned spaces for 183 apartments is grossly inadequate.”

Planning manager James Appleton said that “parking is always an issue with any new development”, but added that the reduction in parking is in line with the county council’s goal of “reducing parking in sustainable locations”.

Mr Appleton also acknowledged that an earlier recommendation to authorize him to give final approval to the plan could give the impression that the decision would not be made by the planning committee.

This was later changed to clarify that the elected committee would have the final say.

Air quality concerns have also been raised.

But Tim Waller, speaking on behalf of the developer, said there had previously been a “typographical error” in the air quality report and assured the committee the readings were acceptable.

Mr. Waller said: “The bid proposals were carefully prepared over the course of two and a half years [through] Cooperation with the Council, three meetings with an independent design review panel and four public consultation events.

“This would be a sustainable form of development designed to minimize car use and instead encourage walking, cycling and public transport travel.

“New auto club spaces could also help take cars off local roads.”

Mr Waller said the proposals were “simply good news”, citing the benefits of a new cycle path, new housing and flood defenses.

But Julian Shinn (Green, St Nicolas) questioned whether the number of homes included in the proposals was “in the spirit” of the joint area action plan covering development of the area.

Jeremy Gardner (Lab, St. Mary’s) said approving the development Wednesday – ahead of the Western Harbor Arm review – would be akin to “closing the stable door after the horse bolts.”

Dan Flower (Lab, Southlands) expressed concern about the pressure on existing infrastructure such as doctor’s offices and schools.

“This area just can’t keep up with these developments,” he said.

Mr Appleton said that new developments “cannot be expected to solve existing infrastructure problems”, adding that calls for developer contributions to new doctors’ offices, school sites and roads have been agreed in principle.

Joe Pannell (Con, Widewater) proposed that a decision be deferred, but that proposal was withdrawn and the committee voted to deny the motion instead.

More information can be found on the Council’s planning portal, reference: AWDM/1473/21. Frost Cars’ nine-storey development in Shoreham turned down

Fry Electronics Team

Fry is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button