Battle for information reveals ‘giveaway’ Boxpark Shoreham lease details

Letter from: Michael Chandler, River Close, Shoreham
Boxpark plans for Shoreham BeachBoxpark plans for Shoreham Beach
Boxpark plans for Shoreham Beach

Prior to the controversial and contested granting of planning permission for a Boxpark development on Beach Green, on Shoreham Beach, I had quite reasonably written to Adur District Council requesting information about the deal it had struck with Boxpark. Read more: Shoreham Beachbox plans approved

On August 26, I asked for the details regarding the length of the lease being granted, what conditions if any had been attached to it and how much Boxpark was paying in return for the lease.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

I received an almost immediate reply that the conditions were standard and that the lease would be for 125 years, however the financial details were withheld on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

Given that Beach Green is a publicly owned open space in a residential area that was effectively being sold against the wishes of local residents I felt that the council had a democratic obligation not to keep any details secret, least of all how much the council was going to financially benefit from the sale.

Consequently, I have pursued that case through the Information Commissioner’s Office and now, six months after my initial request, the council has finally and reluctantly provided an answer to my question. The base rent to be paid by Boxpark to the council is £10,000 per annum.

In my opinion not only is the lease excessively long but it is also far too cheap. Given the scale and position of the site that is being developed the basic rental cost to Boxpark of £27.39p per day is basically a giveaway price and represents an extremely poor deal for local people, not least in terms of the cost to the environment of Shoreham Beach.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Despite the votes of the four councillors who approved the planning application against the detailed, written and closely argued objections of almost 300 members of the public, this development remains an appalling proposal that should be reviewed and abandoned before it goes any further.

Related topics:

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.