BH2019/03548
03.3.20…..Long time, no post! Fractured pelvis….aaaand the rest. But Sussex Radio called me to ask me to go on at 07:40 Weds am, after MP Peter Kyle posted his support for the scheme going for decision this week. This timing may change or get cancelled but I agreed to go on to say why Peter is wrong.
Looking at the agenda listing, please note the early 11 am start for the meeting and that there is a late list item concerning the s106 Heads of Terms and list of Conditions. I wish to note the following which should not be overlooked.
1. The recommendation is Minded to Grant and this is because of the s106 agreement which, if the Committee agrees the recommendation, has to be signed by 20th May 2020 or the officers issue a REFUSAL. Remember that.
2. Flaws aplenty in the s 106 and Conditions. Whilst part of the scheme is build to rent (564 units), another part is leasehold purchase for elderly care units (260). The rental area is only required to BE rental for 15 years under the s106 obligation. Then what?
3. Only 10% of the scheme is affordable, here defined for the s106 as 75% of market rent.
4. This is not a car-free scheme! The s106 and Conditions provides for a maximum overall provision of 288 car parking spaces – for any and every car accessing the site. No resident permits but for various staff, the offices, the D1/D2 areas (leisure, health, community) or retail? Ambulance parking for patient transport or emergency? And good luck getting into and beyond Sackville Rd from the single vehicle egress point!
What about the 260 Care Home leaseholders? They are to be denied both resident and visitor permits! Staff can park on site but they and their visitors must use surrounding streets!
The most IMPORTANT Failure
The set of Conditions requires a maximum height of 15 storeys within the scheme (Condition 59) containing 564 C3 rental units and 260 C2 Care units. But where is the s106 obligation or the Condition concerning provision of that snazzy pedestrian staircase down to Sackville Road? This overdevelopment manufactures a vast bulging mess behind the bottleneck single access/egress point – set to strangle Sackville Road. This would be another London Road nightmare for the future to sort out.
Even MODA know access/egress is a problem. The Planning Statement is a key document and at 5.12 it says: “Although Moda doesn’t control land outside the Site, the masterplan makes provision for the FUTURE development of land to the east and enables FUTURE links and connections to other sites…..” How far into the future would Hove have to wait?
The railway lines are a major headache – a Berlin Wall headache.
That which is missing from s106 and/or Conditionss in any application is potentially vulnerable to post-consent REMOVAL From day 1 of interest MODA KNEW the access/egress issue was HUGE. They went to the Rail authority asking to chat and had to pay them just for a first chat! There is NO appetite to cooperate or spend on Hove access issues! WHO will pay for the stairs, the pedestrian access bridge – both just maybe’s. Why isn’t there a joint venture between the Rail authority and MODA to reinstate the link between the old Goods Yard and Hove Station?
Grade 2* Listed St. Barnabas Church

Grade 2* Listed St. Barnabas Church