John Lewis lined up for Hove Station £100m redevelopment (From The Argus)

HAHAHA! Having read Roger French's reply to why don't buses use the seafront, why am I not Surprised John Lewis might be movng here!

Great idea, but JL will require considerable parking (similar to Churchill Square)as the stores generate so much interest at key times ie Christmas/sales so much so that often in other towns the police have been called to manage traffic getting to the stores.
I think it will be brilliant for the city, but let's see how the council will manage the public expectations about parking on this one.
Somehow, I am not sure the JL collection points will allow Roger's buses into the parking area and I am not sure I would want my 28inch HD flatscreen loaded onto one of his buses, and we would probably be banned anyway.

From the Developers' own website ( http://www.hovesquar
e.com/ ) :-

STATEMENT FROM MATSIM PROPERTIES LTD: JOHN LEWIS PLC WILL NOT BE OCCUPYING ANY PART OF OUR SITE AT HOVE STATION / ELLEN STREET KNOWN AS HOVE SQUARE. 13 October 2012.

Piece of cake this investigative journalism lark - think I might give it a go!

And SmileyD it's probably due to the parking issues.
While JL does home deliveries, it also relies upon high end electricals being collected from their collection points.
The Kingston store has a vast car park underground, the Croydon Home Store is on an out of town industrial estate and the Buckinghamshire store is off the M40 with a vast car park and collection point.
The stores generate huge interest and I don't think B&H can cater with its insistence on public transport.
JL is no different from Currys, Comet or other retailers selling electricals etc and they can't rely on clothing ranges to make money.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
And SmileyD it's probably due to the parking issues.
While JL does home deliveries, it also relies upon high end electricals being collected from their collection points.
The Kingston store has a vast car park underground, the Croydon Home Store is on an out of town industrial estate and the Buckinghamshire store is off the M40 with a vast car park and collection point.
The stores generate huge interest and I don't think B&H can cater with its insistence on public transport.
JL is no different from Currys, Comet or other retailers selling electricals etc and they can't rely on clothing ranges to make money.

Parking charges ate my homework

Parking charges ate my dentist too.
Six months ago £1.50 to park while having treatment at 8am en route to work, to £7 this week.
Moving dentist as are apparently most of the clients.
Another closing/moving business neading to a retail park.

The local plan does not represent what the residents want, we do not want 575 shoe box homes that the infrastructure cannot support, or empty office space. residents want good quality state of the art homes with enough green space, therefore way under 400, and instead upgrade the council blocks and possibly add a penthouse storey. we want great shops to compliment the great shops we already have along church road and the surrounding areas, not another generic shopping centre like churchill square. there is a glut of office space in Brighton, however here so close to the station would be good for quality office space but not too much to sit empty. leisure is another want, an art gallery, an i max cinema, theatre or ice rink, not 9 screens that will only attract tacky food outlets. we want good public squares for outdoor entertainment. most importantly the site must be state of the art cutting edge and quality, lets set Hove apart from other tacky developments blighting Brighton and other towns and cities.

Regardless of JL being part of the plan or not it needs doing. The area is a tip and Kitcat needs to appreciate that anything is better than the rubbish that's there at the moment. Maybe he could put a cycle lane round the outside ?

So, was there ever any truth to this as this? Or is this the annual John Lewis story? Toads Hole Valley next year.

As for parking, apparently John Lewis have a store in Oxford St. Parking is terrible, so it can't be very successful.

The site in hove will probably end up like the Brighton station site, packed in flats for childless couples who commute or work in the city centre and who often leave when kids come along and then rent out or sell up.
A pizza express and a supermarket and a cheap booze and fags store and a bookies.
Bug eyes idea of an art gallery is quaint but amusing. Hove is an area of tower blocks and more are on the way. It's a bit of a grubby Bournemouth.

How did this report ever get to press? Unless the Matsim website is a bigger joke than the Argus.

“I don’t believe this city needs yet another large supermarket backed by 800 parking spaces".
It just goes to show how completely out of touch Mr Kitcat is could somebody inform Him that John Lewis is a Department Store and not a Supermarket.
Also it doesn't matter what those blocks of Flats are Coated in.It is the contents that is the problem.

I'm a bit baffled. When the stadium was being built the Greens didn't openly object to it at all, despite it failing every test of need, not meeting the planning regulations and being built in what was at the time AONB. All it offered is low paid, seasonal part time jobs and was strongly objected to by the residents closest to it as well as many other groups..

On the other hand, here's a development that promises the potential for large numbers of decent, permanent, reasonably paid jobs and we don't need it. What am I missing?

rolivan wrote:
“I don’t believe this city needs yet another large supermarket backed by 800 parking spaces".
It just goes to show how completely out of touch Mr Kitcat is could somebody inform Him that John Lewis is a Department Store and not a Supermarket.
Also it doesn't matter what those blocks of Flats are Coated in.It is the contents that is the problem.

Please note that the John Lewis Partnership own Waitrose and this is what is referred to no doubt.

The developers for the Sackville Trading Estate also wanted a Waitrose.

Developers go visit everyone they can think of and all those they think the public will be impressed to convince themelves will be coming too.

The site is landlocked.

There are two access points by road: Fonthill Road and Clarendon Road (from either end into it). Unless development is virtually car-free and built onto the side of Hove Station, there is a problem.

And yes, it is all looking too ordinary for words and bitty. Cinema yes. Supermarket no - that belongs up on the Sackville Trading Estate. A new leisure centre here yes. A school somewhere up there yes. And a few shops to replace what is being lost in Gerge Street too.

George St. is not in the centre of Hove any more and is now a pedestrianised leisure centre of sorts (bars and cafes and small outlets for shops) instead of a serious retail shopping destination.

Putting retail at Hove Station would help the economy - bringing in people from Brighton and out of town who shop, leave their money here and then leave.

This is a tall building node and so tall buildings would be preferred by BHCC to go here and this is why flats. Flats for commuters who are away Mon-Fri and only around at night and wkend would reduce impact on the area.

Mawell's Ghost "JL is no different from Currys, Comet or other retailers selling electricals etc and they can't rely on clothing ranges to make money."
You're incorrect, of course. Although I have no particular preference for John Lewis price wise, I know that they offer a five year free guarantee on all TVs and up to three years on most other big ticket electrical items. Check it out on their website, although that would hardly count as investigative journalism.

Plantpot wrote:
I'm a bit baffled. When the stadium was being built the Greens didn't openly object to it at all, despite it failing every test of need, not meeting the planning regulations and being built in what was at the time AONB. All it offered is low paid, seasonal part time jobs and was strongly objected to by the residents closest to it as well as many other groups..

On the other hand, here's a development that promises the potential for large numbers of decent, permanent, reasonably paid jobs and we don't need it. What am I missing?

OMG - you really can't let the football stadium go can you ? It's built, it's been a success and there's nothing you can do about it ( apart from continuously complain ! ).

saveHOVE wrote:

rolivan wrote:
“I don’t believe this city needs yet another large supermarket backed by 800 parking spaces".
It just goes to show how completely out of touch Mr Kitcat is could somebody inform Him that John Lewis is a Department Store and not a Supermarket.
Also it doesn't matter what those blocks of Flats are Coated in.It is the contents that is the problem.

Please note that the John Lewis Partnership own Waitrose and this is what is referred to no doubt.

The developers for the Sackville Trading Estate also wanted a Waitrose.

Developers go visit everyone they can think of and all those they think the public will be impressed to convince themelves will be coming too.

The site is landlocked.

There are two access points by road: Fonthill Road and Clarendon Road (from either end into it). Unless development is virtually car-free and built onto the side of Hove Station, there is a problem.

And yes, it is all looking too ordinary for words and bitty. Cinema yes. Supermarket no - that belongs up on the Sackville Trading Estate. A new leisure centre here yes. A school somewhere up there yes. And a few shops to replace what is being lost in Gerge Street too.

George St. is not in the centre of Hove any more and is now a pedestrianised leisure centre of sorts (bars and cafes and small outlets for shops) instead of a serious retail shopping destination.

Putting retail at Hove Station would help the economy - bringing in people from Brighton and out of town who shop, leave their money here and then leave.

This is a tall building node and so tall buildings would be preferred by BHCC to go here and this is why flats. Flats for commuters who are away Mon-Fri and only around at night and wkend would reduce impact on the area.

I know that John Lewis own Waitrose,however if a statement is made which infers John Lewis and not Waitrose is going there then why not change it to clarify the point.When I said about the Flats I meant the existing ones.that is why I mentioned the Coating.
My Grand Mother up until her death lived in the old houses in Conway St and also 2 Aunts and Uncles and their Families so I know the area very well.
I am all for raising to the ground builings that are not fit for purpose it is about time the City Planners woke up and smelt the Coffee.As I repeatedly say Long term solution not short term fix.
I am one of the few that have actually walked the majority of the Streets of Brighton and Hove and think nothing of walking from Brighton General to Hove Station,it is amazing what one sees when on foot.

Fight_Back wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
I'm a bit baffled. When the stadium was being built the Greens didn't openly object to it at all, despite it failing every test of need, not meeting the planning regulations and being built in what was at the time AONB. All it offered is low paid, seasonal part time jobs and was strongly objected to by the residents closest to it as well as many other groups..

On the other hand, here's a development that promises the potential for large numbers of decent, permanent, reasonably paid jobs and we don't need it. What am I missing?

OMG - you really can't let the football stadium go can you ? It's built, it's been a success and there's nothing you can do about it ( apart from continuously complain ! ).

What people don't seem to realise is that not everyone who uses the Stadium lives in Brighton and Hove so those that don't are bringing money into the Area.The same with The Academy at Lancing which will need supplies which will help local Businesses.

Hi - SmileyD and others,
In response to the statement that went up on Matsim's Hove Square development on Saturday, at the time of The Argus going to print on Friday it was confirmed from multiple sources that discussions with John Lewis for part of the proposal were ongoing. It appears the situation changed significantly in less than 24 hours after the story was written. In no part of the above story does it say it was a done deal.
Hope this helps,
Tim

kedshond8, I when I said JL was no different from Currys meaning that these stores need car parking as customers like to collect their goods in the car, I certainly didn't meant they are similar in any other way.
Of course JL price match and offer excellent guarantees and customer service, unlike the other traders such as Comet and Currys which often have goods on show which look like they've come off a scrap yard.

It's a great idea for a development, but there HAS to be adequate on-site parking. Yeah yeah I know, cars, invention of the devil, world's greatest killer of polar bears, etc etc etc - but back in the real world they play a major role in any transport strategy, especially in a place like Brighton and Hove with its absence of Park 'n' Ride.

Any attempt to ignore reality will result in something like American Express in Edward Street - people still drive but with no on-site parking the workers park in the local residential roads.

Plantpot wrote:
I'm a bit baffled. When the stadium was being built the Greens didn't openly object to it at all, despite it failing every test of need, not meeting the planning regulations and being built in what was at the time AONB. All it offered is low paid, seasonal part time jobs and was strongly objected to by the residents closest to it as well as many other groups..

On the other hand, here's a development that promises the potential for large numbers of decent, permanent, reasonably paid jobs and we don't need it. What am I missing?

Point of order: The stadium didn't fail any test of need, it met planning regulations, it's providing well-paid full time jobs as well as occasional work for students and the people and groups in favour greatly outnumbered those who opposed it.

That's all, carry on.

Tim Ridgway wrote:
Hi - SmileyD and others,
In response to the statement that went up on Matsim's Hove Square development on Saturday, at the time of The Argus going to print on Friday it was confirmed from multiple sources that discussions with John Lewis for part of the proposal were ongoing. It appears the situation changed significantly in less than 24 hours after the story was written. In no part of the above story does it say it was a done deal.
Hope this helps,
Tim

Too many people hit the comments button on headline alone!

Like Roads, modern planners seem to forget that buildings can be erected above the Railways. This could create a link North of the Railway also vehicular access as I think only smaller vehicles can get through the Fonthill road Tunnel

inadaptado wrote:

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
And SmileyD it's probably due to the parking issues.
While JL does home deliveries, it also relies upon high end electricals being collected from their collection points.
The Kingston store has a vast car park underground, the Croydon Home Store is on an out of town industrial estate and the Buckinghamshire store is off the M40 with a vast car park and collection point.
The stores generate huge interest and I don't think B&H can cater with its insistence on public transport.
JL is no different from Currys, Comet or other retailers selling electricals etc and they can't rely on clothing ranges to make money.

Parking charges ate my homework

The cat ate mine :)

bug eye wrote:
The local plan does not represent what the residents want, we do not want 575 shoe box homes that the infrastructure cannot support, or empty office space. residents want good quality state of the art homes with enough green space, therefore way under 400, and instead upgrade the council blocks and possibly add a penthouse storey. we want great shops to compliment the great shops we already have along church road and the surrounding areas, not another generic shopping centre like churchill square. there is a glut of office space in Brighton, however here so close to the station would be good for quality office space but not too much to sit empty. leisure is another want, an art gallery, an i max cinema, theatre or ice rink, not 9 screens that will only attract tacky food outlets. we want good public squares for outdoor entertainment. most importantly the site must be state of the art cutting edge and quality, lets set Hove apart from other tacky developments blighting Brighton and other towns and cities.

And storage. The "homes" must have storage, otherwise what you're left with would be 500 luxury prison cells. Brings to mind that Skinny Puppy lyric: "Making time in a low rent high rise" Could so easily be Doing time, except the rent is astronomical and unaffordable unless you are some stuck up nouveau riche yuppy type with no soul.

Green space.
Yep.

Upgraded council blocks.
Yeah they are pretty grim. Did you see the colour inside the lifts before the repaint? Not pleasant, some kind of black and brown chequer pattern all around you.

Great shops.
Yeah good shops are always an idea. I hate Churchill Square at the best of times so something with a bit of character would be best.

Office space.
Possibly have its own block?

An Imax. Not sure. As long as it's not too big, I haven't been to an Imax yet so I'd go at least once.

Art gallery.
Depends what you call art. Nothing too pretentious or dare I say it Arty ****. But somewhere for local artists to show their work that's not too expensive would be good.

Public sites for outdoor entertainment.
I think that would be squeezing too much onto the site. There is already Hove Park and Hove rec for stuff like that, if you don;t mind rugby posts that is.

I'd also say close that tunnel to traffic as that Fonthill Road is potentially deadly (although someone took a roof off a bus in there) .

Like most of the grandiose schemes that so called developers come up with for Brighton & Hove, this flag won't fly........

Its easy to speculate. I'd probably leave that until the depot has been knocked down and they are actually pouring concrete.

How the Dickens can it take 3 years to get to this stage? ie nowhere.

as far as I knew there was talk off waitrose having a new store either where gemini print is or in of the business parks behind it.

Fight_Back wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
I'm a bit baffled. When the stadium was being built the Greens didn't openly object to it at all, despite it failing every test of need, not meeting the planning regulations and being built in what was at the time AONB. All it offered is low paid, seasonal part time jobs and was strongly objected to by the residents closest to it as well as many other groups..

On the other hand, here's a development that promises the potential for large numbers of decent, permanent, reasonably paid jobs and we don't need it. What am I missing?

OMG - you really can't let the football stadium go can you ? It's built, it's been a success and there's nothing you can do about it ( apart from continuously complain ! ).

Totaly in the wrong place and making life a misery for those that live or cummute by it.

I'm amazed at how many people here are either accepting, or even advocating the idea of yet more shops. That's the trouble with capitalism you think it'll give you lots of goodies to gobble, but it's quietly gobbled up your brain.
Social housing and community space would do us all far more good.

disrember wrote:
as far as I knew there was talk off waitrose having a new store either where gemini print is or in of the business parks behind it.

The developers for the Sackville Trading Estate approached the John Lewis Partnership (among others) seeking interest in taking the anchor supermarket proposed for their redevelopment there (which has planning consent that expires March 2013 which will not now be used).

A new application will be forthcoming in due course which will also no doubt want the same anchor shop again.

Developers ask; they don't always get.

Tim Ridgway wrote:
Hi - SmileyD and others,
In response to the statement that went up on Matsim's Hove Square development on Saturday, at the time of The Argus going to print on Friday it was confirmed from multiple sources that discussions with John Lewis for part of the proposal were ongoing. It appears the situation changed significantly in less than 24 hours after the story was written. In no part of the above story does it say it was a done deal.
Hope this helps,
Tim

Irrespective of when the Argus went to print on Friday the story didn't appear on the website 'til after midday on Sunday - by which time the statement on the Matsim's website re John Lewis not being part of the development had already been up for a day. A simple click on the link (contained in your own article) would have revealed that to be the case and the headline could then have been ammended appropriately so as not to give the misleading impression that John Lewis was still involved.

Hove Actually wrote:
Like most of the grandiose schemes that so called developers come up with for Brighton & Hove, this flag won't fly........

Residents in the vicinity will be forming a group (need 21 to join it) in order to create a "neighbourhood plan" with council assistance (Localism Act empowers). It cannot replace Local Plan, City Plan, NPPF but it has influence.

Developers make the same mistake every time. They do not buy land and ask what the council and city needs or wants there that they can provide and still make money. They work to a money-making formula: Offices don't make money. Flats and retail make money. Plus a sweetener (cinema here) and a few carrot-dangles (John Lewis or a doctor's surgery or a police local office, say).

The council wants lots of secure long-term jobs and businesses for this area to meet economic need in the city. The residents want schools. We all want a new leisure centre to rival Burgess Hill or Crawley. This scheme does not provide any of these - which the city desperately needs: now.

However, the city is configured so that everything is sucked into the North Street/Churchill Sq/Seafront vortex. This needs to change in order to deal with the extreme traffic and parking and pollution problems this generates. It makes sense to bring facilities to where the people ARE. People north of the bi-secting railway line need activities brought closer to them to create some balance. We are after all developed all the way up to the Downs.

Hove Station could solve a lot of problems with the right development beside it. How does the redevelopment solve or create problems? How does it provide what is missing?

And if you don't like it, you need to argue using planning law and planning policy. Dismay is not a planning consideration.

Regarding the Kitcat comment, he's clearly not making specific reference to John Lewis / Waitrose, but rather to the large "food retail" unit planned for the west side of the site (as shown in the full presentation) and expressing very valid concerns.

On a wider point - while reference to JL is a suitable dog whistle to encourage middle class readers that this might be a "suitable" sort of development - I've not yet seen anything from these plans that convinces me this will be a development better than just the awful New England development with the standard Vue and a Nandos bolted onto the side that so many towns have been lumbered with recently.
That's not to say it can't be done, just that the plans aren't yet convincing.

rolivan wrote:
Like Roads, modern planners seem to forget that buildings can be erected above the Railways. This could create a link North of the Railway also vehicular access as I think only smaller vehicles can get through the Fonthill road Tunnel

At my meeting with MATSIM's Andy Lambor/LCE's Nick Lomax at the beginning of July I made exactly this point.

They both freaked. "Do you have any idea how expensive that would be?" they cried.

Good point about that tunnel. Could inter-city artics serving the shops get through it? Many do now but then fall foul of the exit into Clarendon Road going south. The right turn into it on the way to Sackville Road is too tight and they back up and mess about and use the wrong lane to make it past the bollards down the middle.

They do it to avoid the turn from Old Shoreham Road left into Sackville Road. No doubt Satnav-led too!

rolivan wrote:
“I don’t believe this city needs yet another large supermarket backed by 800 parking spaces".
It just goes to show how completely out of touch Mr Kitcat is could somebody inform Him that John Lewis is a Department Store and not a Supermarket.
Also it doesn't matter what those blocks of Flats are Coated in.It is the contents that is the problem.

Jesus wept - what hopeless numpty you are. The type of store is irrelevant - it's the impact on the local environment that's the issue.

Your post is typical of the Argus readers board - whining for the sake of whining.

It'd be interesting to note how proposed plans for JL (or other big store) compare with the JL in Tunbridge Wells; the one in TW isn't exactly the most easiest to get in/out of yet attracts significant footfall nonetheless

I can see it now....380 high rise flats being built.......and advertsised for sale in London estate agents offices.Ideal for commuters, right next to Hove Station.

Heave! - actually

look at those pictures - my god are they ugly! (and look like they were drawn by an eight year old.)

Must try harder - 2 out of ten

Smartbloke wrote:

rolivan wrote:
“I don’t believe this city needs yet another large supermarket backed by 800 parking spaces".
It just goes to show how completely out of touch Mr Kitcat is could somebody inform Him that John Lewis is a Department Store and not a Supermarket.
Also it doesn't matter what those blocks of Flats are Coated in.It is the contents that is the problem.

Jesus wept - what hopeless numpty you are. The type of store is irrelevant - it's the impact on the local environment that's the issue.

Your post is typical of the Argus readers board - whining for the sake of whining.

What local environment are you talking about?

saveHOVE wrote:

rolivan wrote:
Like Roads, modern planners seem to forget that buildings can be erected above the Railways. This could create a link North of the Railway also vehicular access as I think only smaller vehicles can get through the Fonthill road Tunnel

At my meeting with MATSIM's Andy Lambor/LCE's Nick Lomax at the beginning of July I made exactly this point.

They both freaked. "Do you have any idea how expensive that would be?" they cried.

Good point about that tunnel. Could inter-city artics serving the shops get through it? Many do now but then fall foul of the exit into Clarendon Road going south. The right turn into it on the way to Sackville Road is too tight and they back up and mess about and use the wrong lane to make it past the bollards down the middle.

They do it to avoid the turn from Old Shoreham Road left into Sackville Road. No doubt Satnav-led too!

You should have referred them to the cost of the Boston Tunnel in U.S.A that's expensive but when land is at a premium it would be recouped.
It is like the the M25 I cannot for the life of me think why they dont build another above instead of trying to widen it.
Developers are only in for a quick turnaround, the City Planners need to have a bit of foresight and do something longterm.

But did the "multiple checks" include a call to the John Lewis group for a confirmation quote? And if they did, and the quote wasn't forthcoming, why did the story lead on this risible spin?
All it's done is make The Argus look foolish and the developers less than frank, although I suppose you could say that a few phone calls from them might constitute entering negotiations.
The upshot is that residents will be looking even more closely at the plans which, at the moment, look like gross over-development. Developers make their money through commercial enterprises, not homes.The only way you could fit everything in as planned is by building our old friends, the tower blocks.

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
I'm a bit baffled. When the stadium was being built the Greens didn't openly object to it at all, despite it failing every test of need, not meeting the planning regulations and being built in what was at the time AONB. All it offered is low paid, seasonal part time jobs and was strongly objected to by the residents closest to it as well as many other groups..

On the other hand, here's a development that promises the potential for large numbers of decent, permanent, reasonably paid jobs and we don't need it. What am I missing?

Point of order: The stadium didn't fail any test of need, it met planning regulations, it's providing well-paid full time jobs as well as occasional work for students and the people and groups in favour greatly outnumbered those who opposed it.

That's all, carry on.

Point of order: read the planning inspector's report. Then come back and apologise. It got through only because the Secretary of State OK'd it for political reasons. Please don't re-write history. How many of the well-paid jobs were transfers of the existing staff?

Fight_Back wrote:

Plantpot wrote:
I'm a bit baffled. When the stadium was being built the Greens didn't openly object to it at all, despite it failing every test of need, not meeting the planning regulations and being built in what was at the time AONB. All it offered is low paid, seasonal part time jobs and was strongly objected to by the residents closest to it as well as many other groups..

On the other hand, here's a development that promises the potential for large numbers of decent, permanent, reasonably paid jobs and we don't need it. What am I missing?

OMG - you really can't let the football stadium go can you ? It's built, it's been a success and there's nothing you can do about it ( apart from continuously complain ! ).

Success for who?

“The whole development could be fabulous for Hove and perhaps lift Hove out of the shadow of Brighton.”

Really dislike this comment. Hove peeps don't see ourselves as in the 'shadow' of Brighton, nor would we want to be lifted out of it to compete with Brighton. If we felt that way we would live in Brighton, not Hove.

Plantpot wrote:
I'm a bit baffled. When the stadium was being built the Greens didn't openly object to it at all, despite it failing every test of need, not meeting the planning regulations and being built in what was at the time AONB. All it offered is low paid, seasonal part time jobs and was strongly objected to by the residents closest to it as well as many other groups..

On the other hand, here's a development that promises the potential for large numbers of decent, permanent, reasonably paid jobs and we don't need it. What am I missing?

You are missing the backhanders and IOU's that went with locating the stadium at Falmer. Stuff the fact it's in the wrong place, has poor transport links, woeful access and insuficient car parking provision and add the fact that the "park and ride" from the UOB is a monumental screw-up and it's hardly suprising it got built - it's exactly what happens in this town - the wrong thing gets approved and everybody ends up having to live with it.

leahlou wrote:
“The whole development could be fabulous for Hove and perhaps lift Hove out of the shadow of Brighton.”

Really dislike this comment. Hove peeps don't see ourselves as in the 'shadow' of Brighton, nor would we want to be lifted out of it to compete with Brighton. If we felt that way we would live in Brighton, not Hove.

You live where you find yourself living - I wish people would stop this "Hove is superior to Brighton" nonsence - it's stupid, unnecessary and untrue.

I've lived in both "towns" and both have their fair share of pros and cons and I'm happy to live in either to be honest but Brighton soes have better transport links so it suits me at the moment.

Have you looked at the developers website,

http://hovesquare.co
m/

what a joke, are they serious, they look like they have spent £6.50 on the drawings.

Does anyone else think this is the most unlikely £200m developement they have ever seen?