Insane plans to turn Brighton Marina into a towering housing estate of over 3,000 flats have been generally supported by Secretary of State Eric Pickles. Although he refused planning permission for Explore Living's nightmare scheme, this was purely on technical grounds, and he appeared to regard the objections raised by the local council, local MPs and local residents as largely irrelevant. So much for Mr Pickles's promise to give local people more of a say in planning matters.
Mr Pickles's decision was based on a report by Planning Inspector Martin Pike which was distinctly fishy. Curiously dismissive of thousands of cogent objections that had been expressed with force and clarity at the public inquiry, it is a confused and confusing document. The praise it lavishes on the supposed merits of the scheme could have come from the developer's own marketing department.
The way Mr Pike dismisses objections is worrying. Here are two key passages from his report:
16.137 It is abundantly clear from the massive local opposition that many people fear that the development would destroy the Marina and the treasured natural landscape and historic townscape nearby. I have given very careful consideration to these objections, which were comprehensively tested at the inquiry. The proposal would undoubtedly bring about a massive change to the character of the Marina, with some loss of its original maritime focus,though that process of change has already been set in motion by the approval of the Brunswick scheme. There would be some adverse impacts on the surrounding locality, but mostly these would be slight; in my view the loss of iconic views of the cliffs, the Downs and eastward glimpses of the sea beyond the city, whilst regrettable, would not be sufficient to justify rejection of the proposal.
16.138 Accordingly, the planning balance favours the grant of planning permission. I reach that conclusion on the assumption that the proposed development would be delivered in its entirety. However, for the reasons given, I have concerns that the S106 obligation is flawed and that there is a risk of the development being built without some or all of the community and infrastructure provision that is critical to the scheme’s overall acceptability. Consequently, in its current form, the proposal is not acceptable and planning permission should be refused.
To paraphrase a key part of what Mr Pike seems to be saying here, 'There has been massive local opposition to the change in character that the scheme would bring about, but the process of change has already been begun by Brunswick so why not take it to its logical conclusion? Of course, local people object to the loss of the iconic views of cliffs, Downs and the sea, but I don't think it matters very much - and certainly not enough to refuse planning permission'. He entirely ignores the fact, brought to his attention at the inquiry, that the developers could have modified the scheme to preserve the views if they had chosen to do so.
Elsewhere he claims that the scheme 'represents a high quality design which would bring about a major beneficial change to the poor urban structure and physical environment of the western end of Brighton Marina'. If this is the self-evident truth he seems to think it is then why is the local population so united in trying to stop the development? Mr Pike does not and will not have to live with the physical environment of the Marina. Instead of attaching so much importance to his own opinion of what makes for a good environment, why does he not give weight to the opinions of the people who know and understand Brighton Marina better than anyone else - and certainly better than he himself does - namely the people who live there now?
Secretary of State Pickles in his lame, uncritical decision letter simply rubber stamps the Inspector's conclusions. He brushes aside the (avoidable) loss of iconic views that local people care deeply about as a 'shortcoming', but not one that would justify refusing planning permission, and nowhere does he explain why he considers that the subjective opinions of a planning inspector should count for more than the near-unanimous contrary opinions of local residents, their councillors and their MPs. For a Secretary of State who claims to be committed to 'localism, localism and localism' it seems extraordinary that Mr Pickles shows so little interest in local opinion.
There is no doubt that the developers will be quietly pleased, seeing the decision as a merely temporary disruption to their ambitions. If they can quickly resolve the shortcomings of the Section 106 agreement they might feel that it makes sense to resubmit the application virtually unchanged.
At present the policy framework relating to development in the Marina is woefully inadequate, providing hardly any effective protection. In particular, the council's key planning advice note PAN04 defines the Marina as a suitable site for tall buildings and dense development, without any general limit on height or density. During the original 'consultation' for PAN04, savebrighton and the main residents' associations condemned it as a charter for overdevelopment - but councillors ignored the hubbub of protest and refused to amend it. Now we are reaping the consequences.
After a recent change in political complexion there has been a U-turn in the council's attitude, and its latest policy (set out in a shiny new 'core strategy') is that there should be no more development in the Marina above cliff height, but this was given little weight by the planning inspector on the grounds that the soundness of the strategy is yet to be established.
To preempt any revival of Explore Living's proposals savebrighton is now pressing the council, as a matter of urgency, to make a clear policy statement that it will not allow any further development in the Marina that exceeds cliff height. Otherwise there could be nothing left but the cliff height restriction in the 1968 Brighton Marina Act standing between the residents of Brighton and the unmitigated disaster of Explore Living's current scheme. We have already seen Brunswick use a loophole in the Act to sweep that restriction aside, and it could be swept aside again.