First Base Edward Street scheme is approved

First Base Edward Street scheme is approved

The Planning Committee voted 8 – 4 to approve the Edward Street Development at its meeting on Wednesday 18 July.

In our article on the local residents’ concerns about the proposal Edward Street development – Local residents complain about First Base underhand tactics we promised to let you know which councillors voted to approve the proposal.  Here is the roll-call:

Voted to Approve

Julie Cattell (chair), Labour, Preston Park ward
Warren Morgan, Labour, East Brighton ward
Carol Theobald, Conservative, Patcham ward
Leo Littman, Green Party, Preston Park, ward
Lynda Hyde, Conservative, Rottingdean Coastal ward
Jayne Bennett, Conservative, Hove Park ward
Joe Miller, Conservative, Rottingdean Coastal ward
Penny Gilbey, Labour, North Portslade ward

Voted to refuse
Phelim MacCafferty, Green Party, Brunswick and Adelaide
Nancy Platts, Labour, East Brighton ward
Michael Inkpin-Leissner, Independent, Hollingdean and Stanmer ward
Adrian Morris, Labour, Queen’s Park ward

The key statement which appeared to have a significant influence on councillors’ views came from Hilary Woodward, the Council Legal Officer, quoting from para 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework:

“….councillors should grant permission unless any adverse impact to do so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit”

If that advice and this precedent is to be followed by councillors, then virtually any scheme which provides significant numbers of housing, employment space and construction jobs could be said to over-ride the interests of the local residents affected to whom councillors have a duty of care.  Which of these is more important?

Obviously not the local residents.

Why were better alternatives not considered?

A less domineering and over-bearing design could still have provided housing, employment space and jobs.  So why was a more appropriately scaled design which would have had a less detrimental effect on the local community, not insisted upon before this  design – the initial stages of which were not satisfactorily explained to the public  anyway – was allowed to progress so far?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *