Following the recent public consultation on the Gasworks development, there are still far too many issues on which the Berkeley Group have failed to give an answer on important aspects of their proposals.
The thirteen amenity societies and community groups who signed the Joint Open Statement on the 18 February have now been joined by the Kingscliffe Society.
So there are now fourteen groups opposed to this massive urban conglomeration proposed for the Gasworks site by the Berkeley Group.
Each of these fourteen groups has asked for clarification on a particular key issue – none of which has been satisfactorily answered to date by Berkeley.
The Berkeley Group has been requested to respond within the next 10 days. Its responses will be published on this website as soon as they are received.
Here are the fourteen questions
1. Alternative design studies – Question from the Brighton Society
What alternative design feasibility studies were carried out?
2. Contamination issues – Question from The Kemp Town Society
What do you see as the main risks of formulating detailed design proposals before the contamination issues have been properly researched?
Has the process of monitoring air quality started? If not, when will it start?
When will it be stopped?
3. Health & Safety – Question from AGHAST
Southall residents living near the Berkeley Group Gasworks site have experienced health problems that they believe are the result of soil remediation that was not fit for purpose. In the call with AGHAST on Monday 1 March, Dan Wickham (St William) claimed the reported health issues were unrelated to odours emanating from the site or the remediation work.
3a What proof does Berkeley Group have that the incidents of local illnesses are not related to gasworks remediation?
3b How is Berkeley Group proposing to ensure that such problems do not occur in Brighton?
3c Why has the Berkeley Group chosen to use the same specialist company (Atkins) as the remediation consultant for the Brighton Gasworks site?
4. Tall buildings issues – Question from the Amex Area Neighbourhood Action Forum
Will overshadowing diagrams/animations showing the effects of shadows cast by the buildings (at the very least at hourly intervals during daylight hours at the four equinox dates), be published before the planning application?
5. Wind Studies – Question from the Kingscliffe Society
What wind studies have been carried out?
What will the wind effects be on the open spaces between buildings (including balconies), from strong north-easterlies and prevailing south-west gales when they hit tall, densely packed buildings?
6. Question from the Montpellier & Clifton Hill Association
Will the responses to the public consultations (both stages) be published prior to the planning application?
7. Question from the West Hill Community Association
Will you commit to allowing time between your final design and planning application so that residents can be consulted on developed design proposals?
8. Community involvement – Question from the Regency Square Area Society
To what degree do you consider you have complied with the Council’s Statement of Community involvement (adopted March 2015), in particular paras 4.10 – 4.14 and Table 4 on p.29?
9. Views and viewpoints – Question from the Brighton & Hove Heritage Commission
Why have site sections east/west and north/south, not been issued at consultation stage which show the existing and proposed site ground levels in relation to the surrounding areas, and relate the relative heights of the proposed new buildings to the existing buildings to the east, north and west?
Where will the viewpoints be located (including from the top of Wilson Avenue and from the seafront), which will show the visual impact of the buildings from a variety of directions including from the sea?
Can we be shown a fly-through video?
10. Density – Question from the Regency Society
How do you justify more than 700 dwellings on a site of around two hectares (ie a density of >350 dwellings/hectare when the City Plan asks for a minimum of 85 dwellings on the entire site and, as a comparator for another site well outside the city centre, Toads Hole Valley, where the housing planned is 50 to 75 dwellings/hectare on a 26 hectare site?
What is the confirmed proposed density of this development expressed in dph?
11. Question from the North Laine Community Association
What justification have you for not yet having revealed the extent of affordable homes on the site? How will you define affordable?
12. Question from Rottingdean Heritage
Housing Needs – have you researched the housing needs for this development?
What is the breakdown of accommodation? i.e how many 3-bedroom dwellings, how many 2-bedroom dwellings, how many 1-bedroom dwellings, how many studio apartments?
How do those figures relate to the housing needs for each of those categories set out in the City Plan?
13. Sustainability and zero carbon issues
Question from the Southdown Rise Residents Association
Why do the proposals fail to include sustainable, eco friendly, and potentially carbon neutral design features so that it aligns with the city’s aim to build sustainably and to become carbon neutral by the year 2030?
Has Berkeley investigated using lightweight engineered timber (CLT) techniques for the new housing? Examples exist in Leamington Spa, East London and Maidstone for buildings between six to ten storeys.
14. Parking issues – Question from Marine Gate Holdings
How many parking spaces on the proposed plan will there be, in relation to the number of proposed dwellings?