Frost Cars site nine-storey Shoreham development refused

Adur District Council’s planning committee considered the proposals for 69- 75 Brighton Road, which is currently home to Frosts Cars, at its meeting on Wednesday (September 28).

But it became the second Harbour-side development to be refused this month due to concerns over the scale of proposals coming forward in the area.

A development review of the Western Harbour Arm has been promised and details will be heard by the planning committee on Monday (October 3).

Shoreham Brighton Road Limited’s proposals included 183 flats in four blocks between four and nine-storeys high, with space for seven shops on the ground floor.

A u-turn would have seen 55 affordable homes provided by the developer after it partnered with Vivid Housing Association.

Plans also included repairs to the riverside wall; space for a new shared pedestrian and cycle path on the A259; and 81 parking spaces.

However, concerns around air quality, parking, the scale of the development, and the number of homes proposed led to refusal.

Visuals Showthe Planned Frosts Cars Development From Brighton Rd

Around 30 people had their say on the newest designs with 125 comments on  earlier proposals.

Local strength of feeling was clear during Wednesday’s planning meeting.

Kim Matthews, a retired geography teacher, expressed serious concerns about flooding from multiple directions due to gaps in defences.

The Development Is Planned For The Frosts Cars Branch In Shoreham, Pic From Google

Meanwhile, Bill Freeman, of Adur Residents Environmental Action (AREA), said: “AREA fiercely opposes this nine-storey development which will further ruin the character of Shoreham-by-Sea.

“Make no mistake, the community are more than angry about what this development, and those already approved along the harbour, are doing to this delightful coastal town.

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

Marine ward councillor Julia Watts (Ind) said: “I think we’ve got a duty to existing residents, and this development is likely to be a very bad neighbour.

“While I appreciate the developers made some effort to address the criticisms of the community and now we’ve got 30 per cent affordable housing, the parking provision of 81 unallocated spaces for 183 apartments is wholly inadequate.”

Head of planning James Appleton said that ‘parking is always an issue on any new development’ but added that reducing spaces is in line with the county council’s aim of ‘reducing parking in sustainable locations’.

Mr Appleton also acknowledged that a previous recommendation to authorise him to give final approval to the scheme could give the ‘perception that the decision isn’t made by the planning committee’.

This was subsequently changed to make it clear that the elected committee would have the final say.

Concerns over air quality were also 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 that levels were acceptable.

Mr Waller said: “The application proposals have been very carefully designed over the course of two and a half years and [through] engagement with the council, three meetings with an independent design review panel, and four public consultation events.

“This would be a sustainable form of development that has been designed to minimise car use and instead promote travel by walking, cycling, and public transport.

“New car club spaces could also help take cars off local streets.”

Mr Waller said the proposals were ‘simply a good news story’ citing the benefits of a new cycle lane, new housing, and flood defences.

But Julian Shinn (Green, St Nicolas) questioned if the number of flats included in the proposals were ‘in the spirit’ of the Joint Area Action Plan which covers development in the area.

Jeremy Gardner (Lab, St Mary’s) said approving the development on Wednesday – before the Western Harbour Arm review – would be akin to ‘closing the stable door after the horse had bolted’.

Dan Flower (Lab, Southlands) expressed concerns about pressure on existing infrastructure like GP surgeries and schools.

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

Mr Appleton said that new developments ‘can’t be expected to solve existing infrastructure problems’ adding that requests for contributions from the developer towards new surgeries, school places, and roads had been agreed in principle.

Joe Pannell (Con, Widewater) did suggest deferring a decision but this proposal was withdrawn and the committee voted to refuse the application instead.

More information can be found at the council’s planning portal with the reference: AWDM/1473/21.