RESIDENTS say the chance to unlock the regeneration of a long neglected corner of Hove has been kicked into the long grass.

Brighton and Hove City Council’s planning committee has rejected £70 million proposals for 186 flats, offices and retail space in Ellen Street, Hove, because of a shortage of affordable homes.

Simon Lambor of Sussex developers Matsim indicated immediately after the decision that the firm would appeal.

Mike Gibson of the Hove Station Neighbourhood Forum said he was appalled by the decision which he claimed threw the whole planning system into question.

Councillors praised many aspects of the scheme but said it must bring benefits for the whole of the city including families on low-incomes.

The plans included the demolition of commercial units, currently home to Furniture Village, Sussex Autocentre and Essential Catering Supplies and the construction of 98 one bed, 70 two bed and 18 three bed flats.

Documents from the independent district valuer, which went public just a day before the hearing, showed the company would make profits of £11 million at 19 per cent of costs if providing 40 per cent affordable homes compared to £12.7 million at 21 per cent for 25 per cent of affordable housing.

The late submission of the information had led Labour councillor Clare Moonan to propose a deferral of the decision to the next committee but this was rejected by her fellow members.

Scheme architect Nick Lomax questioned the District Valuer’s figures, claiming they had double accounted parking spaces within the scheme’s value, had overstated the market value the flats could achieve and understated construction costs.

Mr Lomax said the District Valuer had offered no evidence for his figures and that small changes in building costs could have significant impact on a scheme.

Originally developers claimed providing no affordable housing would be the only viable option to develop the brownfield site at the start of seven months of discussions.

The scheme is the first “open book claw-back” in the city where developers open their financial books as evidence of what is financially viable with the opportunity to increase affordable homes at a later date if shown to be viable.

The scheme had the backing of Hove Civic Society, Hove Station Neighbourhood Plan, The Regency Society and Hove MP Peter Kyle while 22 residents and the council’s heritage, housing and arboriculture teams all objected to the proposals.

Mr Gibson said: “The first step to unlock the development of this area has been missed and the people of Hove will have to walk through a run-down area for God knows how long. How many more years is it going to be like that if Matsim lose an appeal?

“If that happens the current existing shed will be converted into small business units and any kind of coherent mixed use development for Conway Street will be gone.”

He added the scheme would have delivered 40 per cent of the affordable housing in the wider Conway Street Industrial Estate area on just 12 per cent of land with the remaining 60 per cent easily delivered on the rest of the site which is largely owned by Matsim and Brighton and Hove City Council.

Opposing the scheme, Valerie Paynter of Save Hove said she agreed with taller buildings on the site but not if it meant the loss of sunlight for low rise residents.

She added: “Housing here makes sense but not if it’s just for wealthy owners escaping from London. It is five times the recommended density on a small narrow site. That is Hong Kong slum level of density. It is inhuman.”

SCHEME ALMOST PERFECT BUT WITH ‘A LITTLE BIT MISSING’

COUNCILLORS backed planning officers in rejecting the £70 million Hove Gardens scheme.

Conservative Carol Theobald said while affordable housing was not at council levels, there was a risk rejecting the scheme would mean no affordable homes would be built.

Fellow Tory Nick Taylor said nothing was more important than affordable housing but objections boiled down to “quibbling” over 11 affordable units in a £70 million investment to regenerate a run-down area.

Labour’s Clare Moonan said while it was only 11 houses, it was 11 families who would not be homed. Green councillor Leo Littman said other reasons should have been included for refusal including a failure to contribute positively to the city skyline, offer public accessibility and the loss of trees.

His party colleague Phelim MacCafferty said the design and vision of the scheme was outstanding but designing communities should be for everybody including those with less money.

Chairwoman Julie Cattell said the benefits were screaming out but there was a little bit missing and while the council accepted schemes with lower affordable housing, such as Anston House, it was when agreeing with the District Valuer’s advice.