ALDI has withdrawn its plans for a new store next to the A27 Brighton bypass after councillors were told to reject the proposal.
The discount supermarket wanted to demolish the remaining buildings at Court Farm House, Hove, at the top of King George VI Avenue, known locally as Snakey Hill, and build its latest branch there.
It faced objections from neighbours, ward councillors Vanessa Brown and Samer Bagaeen, the Goldstone Valley Residents’ Association, Hove Civic Society, the Regency Society, Cycling UK and Friends of the Earth.
Brighton and Hove city councillors were due to discuss the proposal at a meeting yesterday and officers had recommended they refuse planning permission.
Aldi has now written to council and said it will no longer be pursuing plans for the site.
A spokesman for the chain said: “In light of further survey work being required, Aldi has decided to withdraw its planning application.
“Aldi will continue to work alongside officers to address matters raised and remains committed to delivering a new high-quality discount food store for Hove.”
The scheme included parking for 120 cars and floorspace totalling 1,895 square metres – similar to the Lidl at the Goldstone Retail Park in Old Shoreham Road, Hove.
It would have been be Aldi’s fourth Brighton and Hove store, with shops already in London Road and Lewes Road in Brighton, and Carlton Terrace in Portslade.
A report to the planning committee said Aldi carried out a pre-application consultation with the council in 2020 when officers advised the retailer that its plans were “unlikely to be supported in principle”.
Transport assessments were described as “not robust with insufficient information on the impact on the road network”.
Lack of cycling and walking links to the surrounding areas were also criticised.
The report said: “The proposals do not successfully integrate with the verdant landscape character of the wider locality or that proposed for the adjacent Toad’s Hole Valley site.
“The proposals are not a landscape-led design or exemplary in terms of sustainability. The proposals are dominated by built form and hardstanding and do not incorporate sufficient on-site soft landscaping or screening.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel