LETTER: Concerned about proposed variations

I would like to raise serious concerns about the proposed variations in the above planning application to vary conditions in the original approval of LW/11/0634.

Those members that served on that committee will remember that it was heard at the then Tideway School, Newhaven, in special session, where it was up against another application for a similar site.

They both included supermarkets as part of their proposals and it was decided that the Town could only cope with one such retail outlet and therefore they effectively fought out between them to gain favour with the committee.

The result of a very long meeting was a stalemate and it was therefore decided by casting vote of cllr Davey, the chair.

She was influenced by the fact that the retail partner for the winning application had signed a contract with the developer and that the affordable housing element of that development was more beneficial to the town and district.

The application was given permission, with the caveats which included: the affordable housing element and the 106 contributions to community and recreational infrastructure.

Soon after the application was granted, the retail partner (ASDA) withdrew support and the developer was forced to seek another partner in the scheme. The retailer was the main financial supporter for the 106 contributions and therefore the development stalled.

With no partner having come forward, the developer has been forced to come back to the committee cap-in-hand to ask for withdrawal of the only concessions that the town gained from the potential development.

It is completely hypocritical for officers to recommend that this application is allowed to pass, particularly as it is believed that the developer stands to make money from the retailer’s withdrawal from their contract, which would easily pay for the 106 contributions attached to the original application’s decision and that the town and district so needs the affordable housing promised at the outset.

The financial arguments put forward in defence of the amended affordable housing do not stack up.

New housing recently completed nearby has sold very quickly and the demand for housing here is high.

The small percentage increase on the sale prices quoted would not detract from the potential sales and, in my view, is a smoke screen, designed to falsely add weight to a very weak and unsatisfactory appeal against the original conditions.

If granted, it would send out a very poor message to other potential developers keen to dodge current obligations over affordable housing provision.

The latest Cabinet papers show the results of the Air Quality study and consultation in the town and a major factor in that report shows the impact of traffic on the poor air quality.