Hundreds of thousands of pounds that was intended to mitigate the effects of a huge housing scheme in Hove will be spent on a revamp of the seafront.
Conservative councillor Samer Bagaeen criticised the decision to allocate £800,000 from Moda Living, which is building 800 homes at the top of Sackville Road, to the “Kingsway to the Sea” scheme.
Councillor Bagaeen, a professor of planning, said: “Monies from Moda were meant to mitigate the impact of the development on the local community.”
Instead, he said, it would be spent in a way that would breach the legal agreement between the council and Moda.
When councillors approved the £260 million Moda scheme, the conditions included a developer payment – known as a “section 106” contribution – of £1.74 million towards open spaces, sport and recreation.
Councillor Bagaeen said: “The local community has spent two years working with councillors, Moda and senior officers, including the departed head of planning, identifying projects which everyone agreed to.
“We cannot see how re-purposing Moda section 106 monies to Kingsway on Sea mitigates the impact of the Moda development on the local community.”
But Labour councillor Alan Robins said that the funding was not allocated to specific wards next to the Moda scheme.
Councillor Robins chairs Brighton and Hove City Council’s Culture, Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Economic Development Committee which oversees planning policy.
He said: “The council has been working with the Moda Community Liaison Group on various aspects of the section 106 contribution.”
These included a number of small schemes that various local groups had identified such as a refurbishment of the basketball court in Hove Park.
Councillor Robins said: “Subject to further work on costs, it is anticipated that the majority of these projects will proceed funded through the section 106 contribution.”
Councillor Robins said £800,000 from the Moda scheme was part of £1.29 million in developer payments that would help fund the Kingsway to the Sea project.
The use of the money was agreed in October by the council’s Strategy, Finance and City Regeneration Committee, made up of senior councillors.
The project was meant to cost £13 million and was awarded a £9.5 million grant from the government’s Levelling Up Fund.
But contractors’ costs rose to £16.7 million so councillors scaled back their plans while looking for extra funding.
Councillor Bagaeen, who represents Westdene and Hove Park, submitted a written question about the Moda’s developer payments to the meeting of the full council last Thursday (14 December).
He appears to believe that the law requires the money to be spent closer to the Moda site – on the old Sackville Trading Estate – rather than further afield.
Councillor Robins said that the question was “political mischief-making” and would mislead people about how section 106 funding worked.
Councillor Bagaeen dismissed this description of his question and said that the proposal to spend so much on the seafront should have been shared with the Moda Community Liaison Group.
Again, conflict over monies,when it comes to developers and the very small contribution they make it should be contracted in to what’s been agreed at the time.I FOR ONE ,maintain that all building of any homes for sale must include,and agreed to is a third to be affordable. THIS PLACE has taken hit ,after hit,by developers and the council still grovel,and slide to there every whim,its looking more like inner London,and we know how congested it gets ,Sussex is supposed to be open space and free from ,,now we are seeing pollution at its highest simply because of the influx of that many more in the tightest of spaces and the impact its having on the local people now going to be charged because of the scale of pollution that’s directly caused by the amount of development.
Well said, Councillor Bagaeen.
There are several obvious whopping omissions from the Council’s latest published accounts.
CIL Tax
Unallocated Fund
Carbon Neutral Fund
We could add to this list all the £millions paid by developers to buy themselves out of their 40% social housing obligation in block after block – does it really go into building social housing elsewhere? Who checks?
What is the name of this fund for balance sheet purposes?
All of the above represents £millions of pounds off-book, which is surely worthy of financial misconduct in public office charges against the 151 Officer and possibly an outgoing CEO or two and a Council Finance Lead.
How much is in each undeclared fund and how can they all best be utilised in the event of the Council declaring bankruptsy? Rember the public are owed full transparency in law. The council has no right to financial privacy from us.
Most of these new builds lie empty and i think are just used to get money into the UK. At Brighton Marina some blocks have virtually no one living in them. Also why is the new build on Grand avenue still mainly empty almost a year after being completed.
But it isn’t empty.
Labour breaking Planning law – who’d a thunk it! How many of thus Community Liaison Group are Labour grass roots members I wonder.
Shouldn’t this money be used to repair the railway bridge that the public are going to have to pay for Talk about robbing Paul
Is the railway bridge not the responsibility of Network Rail ?
Oh I guess you mean the footbridge ? Yes the council are financially responsible there.
Cllr. Bagaeen once again straw-manning an argument disingenuously to create discord, as per his usual modus operandi. Deja vu.
It’s a pity that cllr Bagaeen a professor of planning has no knowledge of planning laws I feel sorry for his students who really deserve better
Thing is, I think he does. He’s an intelligent person, so all this comes across as, to me at least, as someone who is bitterly trying to rock the boat, representing everything that is wrong about party politics.
Oh yes it is ! I go past nearly every day – the for sale signs are still up and no signs of life in most of the windows….