Development of 45 Shoreham Harbour homes refused permission

Adur District Council’s planning committee considered a proposal from Cayuga Homes at a meeting on Monday (5 September).

The developer hoped to build 45 homes at 5 Brighton Road, which used to be the base for Howard Kent’s haulage and storage business.

But the planning application was rejected following concerns over drainage and the absence of affordable homes.

The proposals included 45 homes (21 townhouses and 24 flats), a café, and 49 parking spaces.

Planning officers said the scheme was ‘lower density with town houses’ unlike previous attempts to redevelop the site with ‘high apartment blocks’.

None of the homes would have been affordable due to ‘abnormally high build costs’, which include construction of a flood defence wall.

Instead, Cayuga Homes would have made contributions of around £180,000 for five affordable homes off site.

Agent Joseph Pearson, from Lewis & Co Planning, said the developer would have exceeded the financial contributions requested of it adding that the brownfield site was ‘exactly where we should be directing homes’.

Cayuga’s company director, Ed Deedman, explained that build costs for the new flood wall had more than doubled and therefore providing affordable homes on site would not have been possible.

Both the local flood authority, West Sussex County Council, and ADC’s technical services officer objected to the planned flood mitigation.

Officers explained that the developer was yet to demonstrate if the site could cope with excess run-off when discharges into the River Adur are not possible.

Mr Deedman explained that drainage design is usually done in full following planning permission, adding that ‘a lot of time and effort is at risk’ otherwise.

Ten people objected to the newest plans.

One objector, Andy Harvey, who supports Adur Communities Together (ACT), said: “Here we are again councillors; another development along the Western Harbour Arm, another recommendation to approve subject to certain conditions.

“But once again, you’re actually being asked to approve an application when major components remain unresolved.

“The potential for a major flood event is a substantial consideration for this committee – not a T to be crossed or an I to be dotted later.”

Planning officers had recommended the plans for conditional approval but they were rejected by the committee.