|
|
|
|
FRINGE OFFERS |
 | |
|
|
|
FOOD ON FRIDAY |
|
| |
|
LIVE SPORT |
|
| |
|
DOWNLOAD OF THE WEEK |
|
| |
| | WHAT'S ON | | | | |
| | GOING GREEN | | |
| | LETTERS TO THE EDITOR | | | | |
| | COMMENT AND ANALYSIS | | | | | |
|
|
|
Shock blow to King Alfred plans
 |
| An artist's impression of what the development would look like |
Brighton and Hove's flagship King Alfred project was thrown into doubt after extraordinary scenes at a planning meeting this afternoon.
The city council's planning committee voted to take back power from officers just as they were about to rubberstamp the finer details of the application. The move prompted legal threats from Josh Arghiros, joint managing director of developer Karis Holdings.
Speaking after the meeting Mr Arghiros told The Argus: "I'm pretty sure it was held up at the request of the leader of the council.
"This is contrary to their obligations. It is a political manoeuvre to stifle the King Alfred project.
"We are now considering our position. We have had our lawyers here today and we will be using all legal remedies to address this."
More than 750 new homes and a state of the art leisure centre would be included in the redevelopment of the dilapidated King Alfred sports centre site on Hove seafront.
World-renowned architect Frank Gehry's tower design for the site has divided opinion across the city.
Under the planning consent given by the then Labour-dominated committee in March, a series of conditions from Karis Holdings had to be met.
These included financial contributions towards a variety of schemes such as improved public transport and the inclusion of police offices and a doctor's surgery.
The latest twist means the planning committee will have the final say on what planners refer to as a "section 106 agreement".
This has prompted criticism from the developers who see this as nothing more than a delaying tactic by the new Conservative administration which has long been opposed to the £290 million development.
What do you think about the council's decision? Will it harm the reputation of Brighton and Hove in the business community? Leave your comments below.
6:20pm Wednesday 27th June 2007
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Chas, Brighton on 7:10pm Wed 27 Jun 07
I hope the tory leader has plenty of money as he will need it when they sue.
I hope the tory leader has plenty of money as he will need it when they sue.
Posted by: Greg, Brighton on 7:14pm Wed 27 Jun 07
This will be a disaster if does not go through. Brighton and Hove badly needs new affordable housing. Its alright for those with homes to bellyache about something that does not concern them, but the rest of us who do not have our own homes are desperate. Imagine if you were in our shoes.
This will be a disaster if does not go through. Brighton and Hove badly needs new affordable housing. Its alright for those with homes to bellyache about something that does not concern them, but the rest of us who do not have our own homes are desperate. Imagine if you were in our shoes.
Posted by: Liz, Hove on 7:35pm Wed 27 Jun 07
Generations of my family come from Brighton and Hove, yet we cannot even afford these so called "affordable housing". Furthermore, who would want to put thier children in these high rise flats - many of which are being demolished in London.
The land should be used for a fantastic public amenity - football stadium, ice rink, swimming pool and secondary school. Not for tiny flats for the middle classes who wish to re-locate from London.
Good on the Torys. They have obviously tried to get their children into the local school, find a local doctor and dentist willing to take them on... Labour went out in the last election - the Tory's are obviously wised up to the reasons for this.
Generations of my family come from Brighton and Hove, yet we cannot even afford these so called "affordable housing". Furthermore, who would want to put thier children in these high rise flats - many of which are being demolished in London.
The land should be used for a fantastic public amenity - football stadium, ice rink, swimming pool and secondary school. Not for tiny flats for the middle classes who wish to re-locate from London.
Good on the Torys. They have obviously tried to get their children into the local school, find a local doctor and dentist willing to take them on... Labour went out in the last election - the Tory's are obviously wised up to the reasons for this.
Posted by: Chas, Brighton on 7:51pm Wed 27 Jun 07
But who will be left with the huge legal bill? The mug polltax payer.
And how is the King Alfred going to be up-dated without money from outside. It's taken them years to find the money for the bandstand. And that's going to mean cuts elsewhere.
But who will be left with the huge legal bill? The mug polltax payer.
And how is the King Alfred going to be up-dated without money from outside. It's taken them years to find the money for the bandstand. And that's going to mean cuts elsewhere.
Posted by: nobby on 7:56pm Wed 27 Jun 07
who gives a toss, build a decent car park there
who gives a toss, build a decent car park there
Posted by: sc, Brighton on 8:20pm Wed 27 Jun 07
All people want is a decent sports centre. Burgess Hill has one, Crawley has one.
No one really gives a toss about unaffordable housing or gimmicky design. All they want is somewhere decent to take their kids swimming and a nice place to do aerobics. If this had been stuck to in the first place, it could have been built by now.
All people want is a decent sports centre. Burgess Hill has one, Crawley has one.
No one really gives a toss about unaffordable housing or gimmicky design. All they want is somewhere decent to take their kids swimming and a nice place to do aerobics. If this had been stuck to in the first place, it could have been built by now.
Posted by: David, Hove on 8:46pm Wed 27 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Chas[/bold] wrote:
But who will be left with the huge legal bill? The mug polltax payer. And how is the King Alfred going to be up-dated without money from outside. It's taken them years to find the money for the bandstand. And that's going to mean cuts elsewhere.[/quote] Wrong there will be no bill for the tax payer as this is a legal proceedure to protect due dilligence and not the way the Labour party were ramming it through with no protection to ensure the builders do what they have promised. You sound very bitter Cas and i can tell you know once this is built the affordable housing will be the dingy flats with no view right over the sports hall etc, and even these will be outside the average wage paid in Hove
Chas wrote:
But who will be left with the huge legal bill? The mug polltax payer. And how is the King Alfred going to be up-dated without money from outside. It's taken them years to find the money for the bandstand. And that's going to mean cuts elsewhere.
Wrong there will be no bill for the tax payer as this is a legal proceedure to protect due dilligence and not the way the Labour party were ramming it through with no protection to ensure the builders do what they have promised. You sound very bitter Cas and i can tell you know once this is built the affordable housing will be the dingy flats with no view right over the sports hall etc, and even these will be outside the average wage paid in Hove
Posted by: Daniel Trembath, Brighton on 8:55pm Wed 27 Jun 07
I'm 23, and i think i speak for the mojority of my genereration, in saying that the king alfred cantre is an exciting, innovative new build that will push our city into modern times. Our times. I fear if we don't open our eyes as to what this build will do for our city, we'll be left behind with every other decaying seaside resort.
I'm 23, and i think i speak for the mojority of my genereration, in saying that the king alfred cantre is an exciting, innovative new build that will push our city into modern times. Our times. I fear if we don't open our eyes as to what this build will do for our city, we'll be left behind with every other decaying seaside resort.
Posted by: Jane, Hove on 9:33pm Wed 27 Jun 07
I am delighted by the latest news. The design has suffered so many amendments and changes that it no longer resembles the original design which won a competition several years ago. It is, therefore, technically no longer valid so far as I can see and should, consequently be withdrawn. If young homeless people in the city seriously believe they will be eligible for the "affordable" flats when the project is completed - probably not for five years or more - I suggest they take a reality check on the world of "developers".
I am delighted by the latest news. The design has suffered so many amendments and changes that it no longer resembles the original design which won a competition several years ago. It is, therefore, technically no longer valid so far as I can see and should, consequently be withdrawn. If young homeless people in the city seriously believe they will be eligible for the "affordable" flats when the project is completed - probably not for five years or more - I suggest they take a reality check on the world of "developers".
Posted by: bn3, hangolia on 9:59pm Wed 27 Jun 07
THE LEISURE CENTER IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT
THE LEISURE CENTER IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT
Posted by: DW on 10:12pm Wed 27 Jun 07
Pompus Hove-ites.
Posted by: cc, brighton on 10:12pm Wed 27 Jun 07
Give us a really good sports centre - it's what we really, REALLY need. It must be at least 12 years since we've been promised it. In that time all we've had is more clubs, office blocks and expensive flats. IT'S ABOUT TIME THE FAMILIES OF BRIGHTON WERE CONSIDERED!
Give us a really good sports centre - it's what we really, REALLY need. It must be at least 12 years since we've been promised it. In that time all we've had is more clubs, office blocks and expensive flats. IT'S ABOUT TIME THE FAMILIES OF BRIGHTON WERE CONSIDERED!
Posted by: Paul, Brighton on 10:23pm Wed 27 Jun 07
What a disgrace, the pompous Conservatives and the stick-in-the-mud regency society trying to stifle a fantastic development which is much needed to improve the image of our lovely city, AND provide much needed affordable housing!
So what it's a bold design, which might cheese off a few people, I'm sure the Pavilion was when it was built, and Embassy Court...
Flipping Nimbys!
What a disgrace, the pompous Conservatives and the stick-in-the-mud regency society trying to stifle a fantastic development which is much needed to improve the image of our lovely city, AND provide much needed affordable housing!
So what it's a bold design, which might cheese off a few people, I'm sure the Pavilion was when it was built, and Embassy Court...
Flipping Nimbys!
Posted by: nick, hove on 11:00pm Wed 27 Jun 07
I am a born and raised brightonian living in hove this is one of tose Simon "FUNKY" Fanshawe eyesores that will go down the same road as the sixties mistakes that were made to this town. You are obviously not from Brighton paul or you would know that the permanant sqaut now known as Embassy Court has only in the past 3 years had money invested. This was a hideous joke, for the previous at least, 20 years.I fear, alas the same will happen here. brighton and hove have a unique character and this is most certainly not it. that is not to say it is not forward thinking as this since the days of Prince Regent has proved otherwise.
I am a born and raised brightonian living in hove this is one of tose Simon "FUNKY" Fanshawe eyesores that will go down the same road as the sixties mistakes that were made to this town. You are obviously not from Brighton paul or you would know that the permanant sqaut now known as Embassy Court has only in the past 3 years had money invested. This was a hideous joke, for the previous at least, 20 years.I fear, alas the same will happen here. brighton and hove have a unique character and this is most certainly not it. that is not to say it is not forward thinking as this since the days of Prince Regent has proved otherwise.
Posted by: Rachel of Regency, Regency on 11:33pm Wed 27 Jun 07
This is a bit of a turn around for all the council. The present Mayors relative was behind some of the most awful eyesores in Brighton. Amex, Brighton Centre and the Marina. Lets hope we can get a more sympathetic building and some really affordable housing for young people.
This is a bit of a turn around for all the council. The present Mayors relative was behind some of the most awful eyesores in Brighton. Amex, Brighton Centre and the Marina. Lets hope we can get a more sympathetic building and some really affordable housing for young people.
Posted by: onerob, Hove on 11:43pm Wed 27 Jun 07
[quote]No one really gives a toss about unaffordable housing or gimmicky design[/quote]
No one?
[quote]All they want is somewhere decent to take their kids swimming and a nice place to do aerobics.[/quote]
The design includes a sports centre.
No one really gives a toss about unaffordable housing or gimmicky design
No one?
All they want is somewhere decent to take their kids swimming and a nice place to do aerobics.
The design includes a sports centre.
Posted by: Dave, Hastings on 12:26am Thu 28 Jun 07
Oh dear! Perhaps people will begin to remember now why the tories were chucked out of office before! Useless lot!
Oh dear! Perhaps people will begin to remember now why the tories were chucked out of office before! Useless lot!
Posted by: Martin, Hove on 1:00am Thu 28 Jun 07
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the development, surely it's absolutely appropriate that the planning committee (made up of elected councillors) should be making sure the developer carries out their commitments before letting them start building? I can't believe such an important power was ever being delegated to a group of unelected officers anyway. It's amazing (and worrying!) to see people so keen to throw away what little local democracy we DO have just to "get one over on the NIMBYs."
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the development, surely it's absolutely appropriate that the planning committee (made up of elected councillors) should be making sure the developer carries out their commitments before letting them start building? I can't believe such an important power was ever being delegated to a group of unelected officers anyway. It's amazing (and worrying!) to see people so keen to throw away what little local democracy we DO have just to "get one over on the NIMBYs."
Posted by: phil, brighton on 1:31am Thu 28 Jun 07
those of us who live in the shadow of tower blocks in brighton share the concern of people in hove. those ghastly monstrosities from earlier decades are a blight on our town. the king alfred is no better.
crawley, horsham and burgess hill have all shown it's possible to build decent leisure centres without ruining the landscape. and there are other sites in brighton and hove better suited to large-scale housing, such as preston barracks, south portslade and possibly even shoreham harbour.
and the old fruit and veg market would make a great car park or school.
the tories and greens attracted quite a few votes last month because key members of each party opposed the king alfred scheme. i doubt they'll be able to stop it now - more's the pity - but if that's what this is about, they should be applauded for actually listening to the voters.
after all, this is supposed to be a democracy and although in many ways i prefer labour, they were so arrogant and out of touch and so unwilling to listen, it was impossible to vote for them.
so let's hope the tories halt the current king alfred scheme and come up with a better alternative. they may have to pay some compensation but it will be money well spent - with labour to blame for rushing things through when they must have known they were about to lose the election.
those of us who live in the shadow of tower blocks in brighton share the concern of people in hove. those ghastly monstrosities from earlier decades are a blight on our town. the king alfred is no better.
crawley, horsham and burgess hill have all shown it's possible to build decent leisure centres without ruining the landscape. and there are other sites in brighton and hove better suited to large-scale housing, such as preston barracks, south portslade and possibly even shoreham harbour.
and the old fruit and veg market would make a great car park or school.
the tories and greens attracted quite a few votes last month because key members of each party opposed the king alfred scheme. i doubt they'll be able to stop it now - more's the pity - but if that's what this is about, they should be applauded for actually listening to the voters.
after all, this is supposed to be a democracy and although in many ways i prefer labour, they were so arrogant and out of touch and so unwilling to listen, it was impossible to vote for them.
so let's hope the tories halt the current king alfred scheme and come up with a better alternative. they may have to pay some compensation but it will be money well spent - with labour to blame for rushing things through when they must have known they were about to lose the election.
Posted by: d foster, brighton on 1:53am Thu 28 Jun 07
Daniel, I'm 23 too but you don't speak for me. The King Alfred will be a disaster if it does go ahead.
I'm glad I don't live near it and I feel sorry for those who do - if it's built.
I've never known so many people rooting for the Tories. It's bizarre.
Mind you, knowing Simon Fanshawe wants it built is bound to put off plenty of people automatically!
I've never voted Conservative before but if I'd been at home in May, they'd have got my vote for this alone. Best of luck in thwarting this ugly scheme.
Daniel, I'm 23 too but you don't speak for me. The King Alfred will be a disaster if it does go ahead.
I'm glad I don't live near it and I feel sorry for those who do - if it's built.
I've never known so many people rooting for the Tories. It's bizarre.
Mind you, knowing Simon Fanshawe wants it built is bound to put off plenty of people automatically!
I've never voted Conservative before but if I'd been at home in May, they'd have got my vote for this alone. Best of luck in thwarting this ugly scheme.
Posted by: sally, brighton on 2:04am Thu 28 Jun 07
Why so one-sided? It was like this when it came before councillors last year and it put me off buying the Argus because it's biased against ordinary readers and voters.
A friend emailed this story to me and nothing's changed. The argus backs a big, ugly set of buildings and their developer versus those of us who used to buy the paper when it spoke up for us.
Let the Tories have their say. They were voted in to stop this nonsense and to put an end to Labour's ludicrous school admissions lottery.
And who are these idiots who say people in hove are pompous or nimbys! Few people would want such horrible tower blocks in their neighbourhood. Maybe if some of them had lived in Brighton we might not have so many ugly tower blocks of our own.
Why so one-sided? It was like this when it came before councillors last year and it put me off buying the Argus because it's biased against ordinary readers and voters.
A friend emailed this story to me and nothing's changed. The argus backs a big, ugly set of buildings and their developer versus those of us who used to buy the paper when it spoke up for us.
Let the Tories have their say. They were voted in to stop this nonsense and to put an end to Labour's ludicrous school admissions lottery.
And who are these idiots who say people in hove are pompous or nimbys! Few people would want such horrible tower blocks in their neighbourhood. Maybe if some of them had lived in Brighton we might not have so many ugly tower blocks of our own.
Posted by: mickey, brighton on 2:14am Thu 28 Jun 07
come on argus. you've done us proud campaigning for falmer. get behind the people on this one too and get the council to scrap the ghastly king alfred. it's an eyesore. we want a proper pool and sports centre without all the horrid add-ons. put the housing somewhere else. ropetackle in shoreham shows what you could do in portslade opposite the harbour. use some imagination and save us from this dreary gehry nightmare. go argus!
come on argus. you've done us proud campaigning for falmer. get behind the people on this one too and get the council to scrap the ghastly king alfred. it's an eyesore. we want a proper pool and sports centre without all the horrid add-ons. put the housing somewhere else. ropetackle in shoreham shows what you could do in portslade opposite the harbour. use some imagination and save us from this dreary gehry nightmare. go argus!
Posted by: paul j, brighton on 2:23am Thu 28 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Paul[/bold] wrote:
What a disgrace, the pompous Conservatives and the stick-in-the-mud regency society trying to stifle a fantastic development which is much needed to improve the image of our lovely city, AND provide much needed affordable housing!
So what it's a bold design, which might cheese off a few people, I'm sure the Pavilion was when it was built, and Embassy Court...
Flipping Nimbys![/quote] it's not pompous and it's not a disgrace to be democratic about this. voters threw out the arrogant bunch who tried to railroad this through. not a tory myself, but good on them.
good on the regency society too.
i don't live near it so i can't be a nimby but i'd vote tory to prevent this architectural equivalent of the emperor's new clothes.
Paul wrote:
What a disgrace, the pompous Conservatives and the stick-in-the-mud regency society trying to stifle a fantastic development which is much needed to improve the image of our lovely city, AND provide much needed affordable housing!
So what it's a bold design, which might cheese off a few people, I'm sure the Pavilion was when it was built, and Embassy Court...
Flipping Nimbys!
it's not pompous and it's not a disgrace to be democratic about this. voters threw out the arrogant bunch who tried to railroad this through. not a tory myself, but good on them.
good on the regency society too.
i don't live near it so i can't be a nimby but i'd vote tory to prevent this architectural equivalent of the emperor's new clothes.
Posted by: jim, brighton on 4:20am Thu 28 Jun 07
If we do end up saddled with a big bill for scrapping this, it will be Labour's fault for trying to push it through in the teeth of enormous public opposition. Had they done the right thing and been more democratic, the council wouldn't be in this position now. My fear is the Tories are too parsimonious to do the right thing and spare Brighton and Hove this joke of a development. The laugh sadly will be on us.
If we do end up saddled with a big bill for scrapping this, it will be Labour's fault for trying to push it through in the teeth of enormous public opposition. Had they done the right thing and been more democratic, the council wouldn't be in this position now. My fear is the Tories are too parsimonious to do the right thing and spare Brighton and Hove this joke of a development. The laugh sadly will be on us.
Posted by: SUE, Hove on 6:27am Thu 28 Jun 07
All we need is a brilliant leisure centre. There is affordable housing if people are prepared to work. In America, people often have three jobs. When I was buying my first home, I did not go on holidays, I did not binge drink or take drugs. I was prepared to update an older property. I did not exoect perfection - I made do with second hand furmiture. The monstrosity designed by Gehry is appalling and is not needed.
All we need is a brilliant leisure centre. There is affordable housing if people are prepared to work. In America, people often have three jobs. When I was buying my first home, I did not go on holidays, I did not binge drink or take drugs. I was prepared to update an older property. I did not exoect perfection - I made do with second hand furmiture. The monstrosity designed by Gehry is appalling and is not needed.
Posted by: rich, hove on 7:21am Thu 28 Jun 07
Well I live right next to the King Alfred site and am extremely dissapointed in the Conservatives who are trying to stop this magnificent project from going ahead, it is a bold and unique design which most modern buildings seem to lack nowadays, we can't live off of our past heritage forever, we need to look to the future as well as keeping the best of the past, the current king alfred is just embarassing.
I doubt they'll be able to stop it now anyway, it's just a delaying tactic by the tories, afterall planning permission was offically granted and the project was not called in by the Government.
Well I live right next to the King Alfred site and am extremely dissapointed in the Conservatives who are trying to stop this magnificent project from going ahead, it is a bold and unique design which most modern buildings seem to lack nowadays, we can't live off of our past heritage forever, we need to look to the future as well as keeping the best of the past, the current king alfred is just embarassing.
I doubt they'll be able to stop it now anyway, it's just a delaying tactic by the tories, afterall planning permission was offically granted and the project was not called in by the Government.
Posted by: irene dobson, Brighton on 7:40am Thu 28 Jun 07
Why does so called progress always have to include quirky, ugly buildings that do not blend in with existing landscapes. Just look at Horsham, plenty of new buildings, but everything is tastefully done. And as for the gimmick of affordable housing, I doubt very much if it would be affordable to local people, on the kind of incomes this so called 'city' offers. Most of the people with all these way out ideas, are not usually people who have lived here all their life. I would like to see an Ice Rink included in any future plans. We have been promised one for long enough. I am really hoping that the tories will make a sensible decisions, and not just try and please the 'trendies'.
Why does so called progress always have to include quirky, ugly buildings that do not blend in with existing landscapes. Just look at Horsham, plenty of new buildings, but everything is tastefully done. And as for the gimmick of affordable housing, I doubt very much if it would be affordable to local people, on the kind of incomes this so called 'city' offers. Most of the people with all these way out ideas, are not usually people who have lived here all their life. I would like to see an Ice Rink included in any future plans. We have been promised one for long enough. I am really hoping that the tories will make a sensible decisions, and not just try and please the 'trendies'.
Posted by: SN, East Preston (formerly of Hove) on 8:04am Thu 28 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Daniel Trembath[/bold] wrote:
I'm 23, and i think i speak for the mojority of my genereration, in saying that the king alfred cantre is an exciting, innovative new build that will push our city into modern times. Our times. I fear if we don't open our eyes as to what this build will do for our city, we'll be left behind with every other decaying seaside resort.[/quote] Hear Hear! Look what the Gehry-designed Guggenheim Museum did for downtown Bilbao in Spain, it completely rejuvenated the whole area and attracted new economic investment from national and international corporations - surely that can only be a good thing??
Daniel Trembath wrote:
I'm 23, and i think i speak for the mojority of my genereration, in saying that the king alfred cantre is an exciting, innovative new build that will push our city into modern times. Our times. I fear if we don't open our eyes as to what this build will do for our city, we'll be left behind with every other decaying seaside resort.
Hear Hear! Look what the Gehry-designed Guggenheim Museum did for downtown Bilbao in Spain, it completely rejuvenated the whole area and attracted new economic investment from national and international corporations - surely that can only be a good thing??
Posted by: John, Brunswick on 8:38am Thu 28 Jun 07
People in brighton and Hove want and need a super poll/leisure centre AND they want/need affordable housing. Only 24 hours ago the Argus quoted the tories as accepting the housing need. If the Tories are halting the scheme to insist on MORE of the units being affordable, good on them. But I rather think that's not it.
People in brighton and Hove want and need a super poll/leisure centre AND they want/need affordable housing. Only 24 hours ago the Argus quoted the tories as accepting the housing need. If the Tories are halting the scheme to insist on MORE of the units being affordable, good on them. But I rather think that's not it.
Posted by: gary, hove on 8:49am Thu 28 Jun 07
If the council had just replaced like for like there would (in theory) have been no money wasted on sending plans back and forth and the general process of getting this thing going.Just give us a bloody decent leisure centre and be done with it. There are plenty other places where towers can be built like maybe near preston park for example where there are already a number of fairly high buildings. I can think of one particular office building / site that has been lying dormant and referred to as an 'eyesore' for some years now!
Can we have our leisure centre please!!!!!
If the council had just replaced like for like there would (in theory) have been no money wasted on sending plans back and forth and the general process of getting this thing going.Just give us a bloody decent leisure centre and be done with it. There are plenty other places where towers can be built like maybe near preston park for example where there are already a number of fairly high buildings. I can think of one particular office building / site that has been lying dormant and referred to as an 'eyesore' for some years now!
Can we have our leisure centre please!!!!!
Posted by: Glenn, Brighton on 8:50am Thu 28 Jun 07
Sue you speak absolute drivel. Are you really that dense? I, and others, work extremely hard and struggle to pay for rent let alone ever buy anywhere. It is all about me, me, me with some people. The building of this development will have no impact whatsoever on people like you. It is the rest of us struggling for a secure future that need this development. Don't be so selfish.
Sue you speak absolute drivel. Are you really that dense? I, and others, work extremely hard and struggle to pay for rent let alone ever buy anywhere. It is all about me, me, me with some people. The building of this development will have no impact whatsoever on people like you. It is the rest of us struggling for a secure future that need this development. Don't be so selfish.
Posted by: Jonathon Witton, Hove on 8:55am Thu 28 Jun 07
Labour Council have been punished for trying to approve plans before the local council elections.Hove is now Tory because the residents had had enough of the lies,spin and underhand tactics.We want a leisure centre not replica 1960's concrete rabbit hutches which would be demolished in 20 or 30 years time.
leisure centre with all the latest facilities please.
Labour Council have been punished for trying to approve plans before the local council elections.Hove is now Tory because the residents had had enough of the lies,spin and underhand tactics.We want a leisure centre not replica 1960's concrete rabbit hutches which would be demolished in 20 or 30 years time.
leisure centre with all the latest facilities please.
Posted by: paul, brighton on 9:20am Thu 28 Jun 07
[quote][bold]nick[/bold] wrote:
I am a born and raised brightonian living in hove this is one of tose Simon \"FUNKY\" Fanshawe eyesores that will go down the same road as the sixties mistakes that were made to this town. You are obviously not from Brighton paul or you would know that the permanant sqaut now known as Embassy Court has only in the past 3 years had money invested. This was a hideous joke, for the previous at least, 20 years.I fear, alas the same will happen here. brighton and hove have a unique character and this is most certainly not it. that is not to say it is not forward thinking as this since the days of Prince Regent has proved otherwise.[/quote] I may not have been born here mate, but I've lived here for nearly 18 yrs, the reason for Embassy court being an eyesore was absentee landlords, NOT the design of the building which I think is great.
p.s. Being born here doesn't give you any more right to comment than anyone else mate.
nick wrote:
I am a born and raised brightonian living in hove this is one of tose Simon \"FUNKY\" Fanshawe eyesores that will go down the same road as the sixties mistakes that were made to this town. You are obviously not from Brighton paul or you would know that the permanant sqaut now known as Embassy Court has only in the past 3 years had money invested. This was a hideous joke, for the previous at least, 20 years.I fear, alas the same will happen here. brighton and hove have a unique character and this is most certainly not it. that is not to say it is not forward thinking as this since the days of Prince Regent has proved otherwise.
I may not have been born here mate, but I've lived here for nearly 18 yrs, the reason for Embassy court being an eyesore was absentee landlords, NOT the design of the building which I think is great.
p.s. Being born here doesn't give you any more right to comment than anyone else mate.
Posted by: rob, brighton on 9:21am Thu 28 Jun 07
Although I don't live in Hove itself, I am appalled by this blot on the landscape they're trying to build so good luck to the Tories if they are trying to stop it from going up.
With a couple of exceptions, almost all my friends - not just in Hove - want it stopped. I'm not sure I agree with Sally about the Argus's coverage. It's been reasonably balance to my mind. Having said that, I know a lot of us would be impressed if the Argus campaigned for a fresh look at the design and density of building on what really should just be a leisure centre site.
Although I don't live in Hove itself, I am appalled by this blot on the landscape they're trying to build so good luck to the Tories if they are trying to stop it from going up.
With a couple of exceptions, almost all my friends - not just in Hove - want it stopped. I'm not sure I agree with Sally about the Argus's coverage. It's been reasonably balance to my mind. Having said that, I know a lot of us would be impressed if the Argus campaigned for a fresh look at the design and density of building on what really should just be a leisure centre site.
Posted by: anon, Hove on 9:34am Thu 28 Jun 07
If you want to know what the 'affordable' housing part of this enormous wind tunnel will be like, look at Mr Arghiros' last building on Connaught Road. Nice sheds at the back and no parking was a last minute 'hidden' change.
If you want to know what the 'affordable' housing part of this enormous wind tunnel will be like, look at Mr Arghiros' last building on Connaught Road. Nice sheds at the back and no parking was a last minute 'hidden' change.
Posted by: LB, Hove on 9:36am Thu 28 Jun 07
[quote][bold]sc[/bold] wrote:
All people want is a decent sports centre. Burgess Hill has one, Crawley has one. No one really gives a toss about unaffordable housing or gimmicky design. All they want is somewhere decent to take their kids swimming and a nice place to do aerobics. If this had been stuck to in the first place, it could have been built by now.[/quote] What sc said ^
sc wrote:
All people want is a decent sports centre. Burgess Hill has one, Crawley has one. No one really gives a toss about unaffordable housing or gimmicky design. All they want is somewhere decent to take their kids swimming and a nice place to do aerobics. If this had been stuck to in the first place, it could have been built by now.
What sc said ^
Posted by: Martin, Hove on 9:44am Thu 28 Jun 07
[quote][bold]rich[/bold] wrote:
Well I live right next to the King Alfred site and am extremely dissapointed in the Conservatives who are trying to stop this magnificent project from going ahead, it is a bold and unique design which most modern buildings seem to lack nowadays, we can\'t live off of our past heritage forever, we need to look to the future as well as keeping the best of the past, the current king alfred is just embarassing.
I doubt they\'ll be able to stop it now anyway, it\'s just a delaying tactic by the tories, afterall planning permission was offically granted and the project was not called in by the Government.[/quote] Planning permission is dependent on the developers carrying out their various section 106 commitments - all the planning committee have done is taken back the power to ensure that happens.
Would you rather the developers' section 106 commitments were just quietly forgotten about?
rich wrote:
Well I live right next to the King Alfred site and am extremely dissapointed in the Conservatives who are trying to stop this magnificent project from going ahead, it is a bold and unique design which most modern buildings seem to lack nowadays, we can\'t live off of our past heritage forever, we need to look to the future as well as keeping the best of the past, the current king alfred is just embarassing.
I doubt they\'ll be able to stop it now anyway, it\'s just a delaying tactic by the tories, afterall planning permission was offically granted and the project was not called in by the Government.
Planning permission is dependent on the developers carrying out their various section 106 commitments - all the planning committee have done is taken back the power to ensure that happens.
Would you rather the developers' section 106 commitments were just quietly forgotten about?
Posted by: Andrew, Patcham on 9:54am Thu 28 Jun 07
[quote][bold]SUE[/bold] wrote:
All we need is a brilliant leisure centre. There is affordable housing if people are prepared to work. In America, people often have three jobs. When I was buying my first home, I did not go on holidays, I did not binge drink or take drugs. I was prepared to update an older property. I did not exoect perfection - I made do with second hand furmiture. The monstrosity designed by Gehry is appalling and is not needed.[/quote] Does that mean you go on [bold]holiday, binge drink and take drugs[/bold] now Sue?
SUE wrote:
All we need is a brilliant leisure centre. There is affordable housing if people are prepared to work. In America, people often have three jobs. When I was buying my first home, I did not go on holidays, I did not binge drink or take drugs. I was prepared to update an older property. I did not exoect perfection - I made do with second hand furmiture. The monstrosity designed by Gehry is appalling and is not needed.
Does that mean you go on
holiday, binge drink and take drugs now Sue?
Posted by: King Canute, buoy 23 on 9:58am Thu 28 Jun 07
The decision to approve the development per se has been made -- the sub-committee cannot unpick that one, but it can meddle and tinker with the 45 conditions till the cows come home. Eg: 10: £1,000,000 of artistic influence by the design team or 29: The display and provision of cycle maps. Going beyond that could be ultra vires and bad faith verging on the incompetent and maladministration. Unless, the Tories pay Josh to go away. Roll-on the lawyers.
The decision to approve the development per se has been made -- the sub-committee cannot unpick that one, but it can meddle and tinker with the 45 conditions till the cows come home. Eg: 10: £1,000,000 of artistic influence by the design team or 29: The display and provision of cycle maps. Going beyond that could be ultra vires and bad faith verging on the incompetent and maladministration. Unless, the Tories pay Josh to go away. Roll-on the lawyers.
Posted by: Ray Farrow, Hove on 10:04am Thu 28 Jun 07
I have no objection to the redevelopment of the King Alfred site, however I do object to the design of the towers and 750 flats which is an over development of the site and will over shadow literally the surrounding area. Another much more viable plan was put forward which had 450 flats and a much cleaner design but was ignored by the previous administration.
I think that KARIS have had to may attempts at getting this right and failed
I have no objection to the redevelopment of the King Alfred site, however I do object to the design of the towers and 750 flats which is an over development of the site and will over shadow literally the surrounding area. Another much more viable plan was put forward which had 450 flats and a much cleaner design but was ignored by the previous administration.
I think that KARIS have had to may attempts at getting this right and failed
Posted by: chris, seafront on 10:24am Thu 28 Jun 07
Word is that Mr Arghiros was in full-on rage mode at the Council meeting, talking about suing the Council "for millions", even suing individual Councillors.
So much hot air. So, what is the sub-plot here? Why the sheer panic over a perfectly nomal procedural matter?
The upshot is that this Agreement will be all the more carefully stidied.
Ay, there's the rub.
Word is that Mr Arghiros was in full-on rage mode at the Council meeting, talking about suing the Council "for millions", even suing individual Councillors.
So much hot air. So, what is the sub-plot here? Why the sheer panic over a perfectly nomal procedural matter?
The upshot is that this Agreement will be all the more carefully stidied.
Ay, there's the rub.
Posted by: Stu, Hove on 10:30am Thu 28 Jun 07
I love Gehry's designs and I'd love a Gehry building in Brighton... just not this one! It's completely hideous and totally out of place. Good on ya Tories!
I love Gehry's designs and I'd love a Gehry building in Brighton... just not this one! It's completely hideous and totally out of place. Good on ya Tories!
Posted by: king alfred user, brighton on 10:44am Thu 28 Jun 07
For the size of the population, Brighton&Hove's provision of council run sports facilities is appalling. We have a proliferation of overpriced private gyms and yoga shops, whilst people who train and compete in sports, many representing the city when they do so, train in slum-like facilities. The current KA complex is a dump. If this does go ahead, the proviso should be that Hove gets a PROPER sports/leisure centre, not just some glorified babies' paddling pool and a bit of floor space for aerobics. Can't see it myself, it's obvious looking at where B&HA play football that SPORT, rather than "leisure" doesn't feature highly on the agenda. Money is obviously considered better spent on attracting stag parties, drug dealers, old cars and gypsies.
For the size of the population, Brighton&Hove's provision of council run sports facilities is appalling. We have a proliferation of overpriced private gyms and yoga shops, whilst people who train and compete in sports, many representing the city when they do so, train in slum-like facilities. The current KA complex is a dump. If this does go ahead, the proviso should be that Hove gets a PROPER sports/leisure centre, not just some glorified babies' paddling pool and a bit of floor space for aerobics. Can't see it myself, it's obvious looking at where B&HA play football that SPORT, rather than "leisure" doesn't feature highly on the agenda. Money is obviously considered better spent on attracting stag parties, drug dealers, old cars and gypsies.
Posted by: mark, brighton on 11:20am Thu 28 Jun 07
well the developers want to get on with this design, but can go into recievership once the flats are sold, leaving the council to fund the sports areas. as for affordable housing, will it be 50% sold to teachers and nurses? the ones in gordon road were nearly all bought by london buyers who moved and got jobs here! how is that helping the homeless??time for this council to reconsider that certain builders get anything passed by this council.
well the developers want to get on with this design, but can go into recievership once the flats are sold, leaving the council to fund the sports areas. as for affordable housing, will it be 50% sold to teachers and nurses? the ones in gordon road were nearly all bought by london buyers who moved and got jobs here! how is that helping the homeless??time for this council to reconsider that certain builders get anything passed by this council.
Posted by: justin on 11:22am Thu 28 Jun 07
This latest twist is nothing more than the continuation of the sleeze which Brighton has long been associated with, only this time it's the Tories who are maintaining the tradition. Members are not allowed to determine planning issues on political grounds, but this is what they do (Item 3.4 of Agenda Item 17) How Brighton has escaped Special Orders for all these years is nothing short of miraculous. Brighton, and the Members of the Planning Committee will pay the price for their conduct. And as for the City and its poor old residents - well it's a bit of an investment no-go area really - West Pier - football stadium. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.......
This latest twist is nothing more than the continuation of the sleeze which Brighton has long been associated with, only this time it's the Tories who are maintaining the tradition. Members are not allowed to determine planning issues on political grounds, but this is what they do (Item 3.4 of Agenda Item 17) How Brighton has escaped Special Orders for all these years is nothing short of miraculous. Brighton, and the Members of the Planning Committee will pay the price for their conduct. And as for the City and its poor old residents - well it's a bit of an investment no-go area really - West Pier - football stadium. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.......
Posted by: Michael on 11:49am Thu 28 Jun 07
As you wander around Brighton, you begin to notice a pattern. Almost none of the buildings constructed since the Town and Country Planning Act came into force have any real merit. It's all just dull, dreary ticky tacky boxy rubbish. Here we have the chance to create a real piece of urban sculpture and what do Brighton do? They fluff it yet again - I sincerely hope that Karis/ING stay with this and in so doing give Brighton City Council the bloody nose it so richly deserves.
As you wander around Brighton, you begin to notice a pattern. Almost none of the buildings constructed since the Town and Country Planning Act came into force have any real merit. It's all just dull, dreary ticky tacky boxy rubbish. Here we have the chance to create a real piece of urban sculpture and what do Brighton do? They fluff it yet again - I sincerely hope that Karis/ING stay with this and in so doing give Brighton City Council the bloody nose it so richly deserves.
Posted by: Jon, hove on 11:50am Thu 28 Jun 07
Well done to the Tories, anyone who thinks this is an exiting development should really look at the design and consider the scale, it's a lot of ugly tower blocks, don't just believe the Karis/Gehry PR machine.
Sadly Karis will win in the end.
Well done to the Tories, anyone who thinks this is an exiting development should really look at the design and consider the scale, it's a lot of ugly tower blocks, don't just believe the Karis/Gehry PR machine.
Sadly Karis will win in the end.
Posted by: Pete Murphy, Hove on 12:28pm Thu 28 Jun 07
We really need to get on with this and build Gehry's King Alfred Centre. It's going to be a magnificent asset to the city - exciting, bold and modern. The sports centre is going to be great - three superb pools and loads of other facilities. It doesn't particularly overshadow or dominate the neighbourhood - just visit www.thekingalfred.or
g and check out the architects models - they don't look too bad at all. Finally a couple of people here said the developer will build the flats and then skimp on the sports center. Funny, 'cos according to this site the developer is required to build the sports [italic]centre[/italic] before the flats. For God's sake let's just get on with building the **** thing.
We really need to get on with this and build Gehry's King Alfred Centre. It's going to be a magnificent asset to the city - exciting, bold and modern. The sports centre is going to be great - three superb pools and loads of other facilities. It doesn't particularly overshadow or dominate the neighbourhood - just visit www.thekingalfred.or
g and check out the architects models - they don't look too bad at all. Finally a couple of people here said the developer will build the flats and then skimp on the sports center. Funny, 'cos according to this site the developer is required to build the sports
centre before the flats. For God's sake let's just get on with building the **** thing.
Posted by: cc, brighton on 12:59pm Thu 28 Jun 07
Pete,
The sports centre is NOT going to be great - that's half the problem. The swimming pools will be too small and there is no provision for many sports such as gymnastics, indoor bowls etc. Brighton desparately needs much, much better facilities than this project will provide.
Pete,
The sports centre is NOT going to be great - that's half the problem. The swimming pools will be too small and there is no provision for many sports such as gymnastics, indoor bowls etc. Brighton desparately needs much, much better facilities than this project will provide.
Posted by: Nigel, Brighton on 1:18pm Thu 28 Jun 07
Who cares what buildings look like. As long as they have four walls and a roof, and are accessible to those struggling to get on property ladder, it matters not one bit what shape they are. Blimey, some people must have such dull lives to get wound up about a shape of a building, they'll seldom see. Why don't you grow up?
Who cares what buildings look like. As long as they have four walls and a roof, and are accessible to those struggling to get on property ladder, it matters not one bit what shape they are. Blimey, some people must have such dull lives to get wound up about a shape of a building, they'll seldom see. Why don't you grow up?
Posted by: Kathleen McMullen, Hove on 3:19pm Thu 28 Jun 07
Opposite the quarterdeck area of the seafront before King Alfred's there's an outlet for sewage at the end of the small pier.
At low tide the stench is terrible down on the beach. There's another one further along.
So what are they going to do with all the extra sewage from the 750 homes? Will they be pumping it out to sea?
I suspect the entire waste water infrastucture including the sewerage in the area needs upgrading.
Will the cost of this be included in the costs of the proposed development?
Who wants to be housed opposite a sewage outlet? More info please.
Opposite the quarterdeck area of the seafront before King Alfred's there's an outlet for sewage at the end of the small pier.
At low tide the stench is terrible down on the beach. There's another one further along.
So what are they going to do with all the extra sewage from the 750 homes? Will they be pumping it out to sea?
I suspect the entire waste water infrastucture including the sewerage in the area needs upgrading.
Will the cost of this be included in the costs of the proposed development?
Who wants to be housed opposite a sewage outlet? More info please.
Posted by: richard, sussex by the sea on 4:00pm Thu 28 Jun 07
750 homes is rather alot for this area, why so many? and why so high? well that's simple...developer greed.
750 homes is rather alot for this area, why so many? and why so high? well that's simple...developer greed.
Posted by: Bob the Builder on 4:02pm Thu 28 Jun 07
Just stick a new Tesco there. That would solve all the problems and annoy the residents.
Just stick a new Tesco there. That would solve all the problems and annoy the residents.
Posted by: harry, hove on 4:39pm Thu 28 Jun 07
I live close by to the King Alfred site and whole heartedly support the scheme. This is a major opportunity for Hove and its residents, and from what I have read of the above, alot of the negative views are being expressed by residents of the City who will not be directly affected by the proposals (i.e. who live in Brighton, Patcham etc). Some people just don't like change and whatever was suggested for the site wouldn't be good enough. The affordable housing won't be allocated by the developer, but will be sold to, allocated by and ultimately managed by a registered social landlord (non-profit making entity). The developer will be selling the homes to the RSL well below market value and probably for less than the construction cost, so will be making a valuable contribution to the housing needs of Brighton & Hove residents. If the Tories and their cronies scupper this opportunity to put our City, and particularly Hove, on the map, then they truly are a bunch of backward change resisting nimby's and I wish Karis well in all legal endeavours to secure that this exemplar scheme proceeds.
I live close by to the King Alfred site and whole heartedly support the scheme. This is a major opportunity for Hove and its residents, and from what I have read of the above, alot of the negative views are being expressed by residents of the City who will not be directly affected by the proposals (i.e. who live in Brighton, Patcham etc). Some people just don't like change and whatever was suggested for the site wouldn't be good enough. The affordable housing won't be allocated by the developer, but will be sold to, allocated by and ultimately managed by a registered social landlord (non-profit making entity). The developer will be selling the homes to the RSL well below market value and probably for less than the construction cost, so will be making a valuable contribution to the housing needs of Brighton & Hove residents. If the Tories and their cronies scupper this opportunity to put our City, and particularly Hove, on the map, then they truly are a bunch of backward change resisting nimby's and I wish Karis well in all legal endeavours to secure that this exemplar scheme proceeds.
Posted by: Bob Sellwood, Hove on 4:47pm Thu 28 Jun 07
Councillors should be the representatives of the people, not their rulers. Labour were kicked out because of their arrogant diktats and their contempt for local opinion.
Issues like this should be decided by a referendum of the city's residents. If that had been done in the first place I suspect that the towers idea would have been strangled at birth.
Bob
Hove
Councillors should be the representatives of the people, not their rulers. Labour were kicked out because of their arrogant diktats and their contempt for local opinion.
Issues like this should be decided by a referendum of the city's residents. If that had been done in the first place I suspect that the towers idea would have been strangled at birth.
Bob
Hove
Posted by: Shirley Earland, Hove on 6:33pm Thu 28 Jun 07
Labour Councillors in Brighton were very keen for the Frank Gehry project to go ahead as it was in Hove, not Brighton. However, the Conservative councillors who lived in Hove, didn't want the project. As Labour is so keen to have this developement, have it in Brighton. We'll be quite happy to have it built on the old Pier ground, and have the Eye on the King Alfred Centre.
I sent an email to the Labour Councillors, asking what infrastructure they were putting in place to support the massive influx of 750 homes. Needless to say, they declined to answer, as the answer was obviously 'NONE[bold]bold[/bold] '.
Labour Councillors in Brighton were very keen for the Frank Gehry project to go ahead as it was in Hove, not Brighton. However, the Conservative councillors who lived in Hove, didn't want the project. As Labour is so keen to have this developement, have it in Brighton. We'll be quite happy to have it built on the old Pier ground, and have the Eye on the King Alfred Centre.
I sent an email to the Labour Councillors, asking what infrastructure they were putting in place to support the massive influx of 750 homes. Needless to say, they declined to answer, as the answer was obviously 'NONE '.
Posted by: bob, hove on 7:36pm Thu 28 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Shirley Earland[/bold] wrote:
Labour Councillors in Brighton were very keen for the Frank Gehry project to go ahead as it was in Hove, not Brighton. However, the Conservative councillors who lived in Hove, didn't want the project. As Labour is so keen to have this developement, have it in Brighton. We'll be quite happy to have it built on the old Pier ground, and have the Eye on the King Alfred Centre. I sent an email to the Labour Councillors, asking what infrastructure they were putting in place to support the massive influx of 750 homes. Needless to say, they declined to answer, as the answer was obviously 'NONE[bold]bold[/bold] '.[/quote] Hmmmm. Quite possibly another Tory supporting Hove based 6 bed home owning millionaire nimby who doesn't want 'affordable homes' for anyone earning less than a pilot's salary within more than 2 miles of her home... or maybe not??
Shirley Earland wrote:
Labour Councillors in Brighton were very keen for the Frank Gehry project to go ahead as it was in Hove, not Brighton. However, the Conservative councillors who lived in Hove, didn't want the project. As Labour is so keen to have this developement, have it in Brighton. We'll be quite happy to have it built on the old Pier ground, and have the Eye on the King Alfred Centre. I sent an email to the Labour Councillors, asking what infrastructure they were putting in place to support the massive influx of 750 homes. Needless to say, they declined to answer, as the answer was obviously 'NONE '.
Hmmmm. Quite possibly another Tory supporting Hove based 6 bed home owning millionaire nimby who doesn't want 'affordable homes' for anyone earning less than a pilot's salary within more than 2 miles of her home... or maybe not??
Posted by: Rob, Shoreham on 9:19pm Thu 28 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Greg[/bold] wrote:
This will be a disaster if does not go through. Brighton and Hove badly needs new affordable housing. Its alright for those with homes to bellyache about something that does not concern them, but the rest of us who do not have our own homes are desperate. Imagine if you were in our shoes.[/quote] Oi Greg, give me my shoes back.
Greg wrote:
This will be a disaster if does not go through. Brighton and Hove badly needs new affordable housing. Its alright for those with homes to bellyache about something that does not concern them, but the rest of us who do not have our own homes are desperate. Imagine if you were in our shoes.
Oi Greg, give me my shoes back.
Posted by: Fiona, Hove on 9:36pm Thu 28 Jun 07
[quote][bold]bob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Shirley Earland[/bold] wrote:
Labour Councillors in Brighton were very keen for the Frank Gehry project to go ahead as it was in Hove, not Brighton. However, the Conservative councillors who lived in Hove, didn't want the project. As Labour is so keen to have this developement, have it in Brighton. We'll be quite happy to have it built on the old Pier ground, and have the Eye on the King Alfred Centre. I sent an email to the Labour Councillors, asking what infrastructure they were putting in place to support the massive influx of 750 homes. Needless to say, they declined to answer, as the answer was obviously 'NONE[bold]bold[/bold] '.[/quote] Hmmmm. Quite possibly another Tory supporting Hove based 6 bed home owning millionaire nimby who doesn't want 'affordable homes' for anyone earning less than a pilot's salary within more than 2 miles of her home... or maybe not??[/quote] Grow up! How can this be affordable housing when the maintenance charges alone (to cover lifts, window cleaning, general cleaning, etc) will put them out of the reach of all but the very well off? Ask anyone who lives in a purpose built block and they either pay maintenance and a sinking fund or get lumbered with bills for several thousand out of the blue.
bob wrote:
Shirley Earland wrote:
Labour Councillors in Brighton were very keen for the Frank Gehry project to go ahead as it was in Hove, not Brighton. However, the Conservative councillors who lived in Hove, didn't want the project. As Labour is so keen to have this developement, have it in Brighton. We'll be quite happy to have it built on the old Pier ground, and have the Eye on the King Alfred Centre. I sent an email to the Labour Councillors, asking what infrastructure they were putting in place to support the massive influx of 750 homes. Needless to say, they declined to answer, as the answer was obviously 'NONE '.
Hmmmm. Quite possibly another Tory supporting Hove based 6 bed home owning millionaire nimby who doesn't want 'affordable homes' for anyone earning less than a pilot's salary within more than 2 miles of her home... or maybe not??
Grow up! How can this be affordable housing when the maintenance charges alone (to cover lifts, window cleaning, general cleaning, etc) will put them out of the reach of all but the very well off? Ask anyone who lives in a purpose built block and they either pay maintenance and a sinking fund or get lumbered with bills for several thousand out of the blue.
Posted by: bob, hove on 10:28pm Thu 28 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Fiona[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]bob[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Shirley Earland[/bold] wrote: Labour Councillors in Brighton were very keen for the Frank Gehry project to go ahead as it was in Hove, not Brighton. However, the Conservative councillors who lived in Hove, didn't want the project. As Labour is so keen to have this developement, have it in Brighton. We'll be quite happy to have it built on the old Pier ground, and have the Eye on the King Alfred Centre. I sent an email to the Labour Councillors, asking what infrastructure they were putting in place to support the massive influx of 750 homes. Needless to say, they declined to answer, as the answer was obviously 'NONE[bold]bold[/bold] '.[/quote] Hmmmm. Quite possibly another Tory supporting Hove based 6 bed home owning millionaire nimby who doesn't want 'affordable homes' for anyone earning less than a pilot's salary within more than 2 miles of her home... or maybe not??[/quote] Grow up! How can this be affordable housing when the maintenance charges alone (to cover lifts, window cleaning, general cleaning, etc) will put them out of the reach of all but the very well off? Ask anyone who lives in a purpose built block and they either pay maintenance and a sinking fund or get lumbered with bills for several thousand out of the blue. [/quote] Lifts require replacement once every 30 years, roughly, so long as that they are regularly maintained and that the main operating elements are overhauled on a 10 yearly basis. Windows will be self cleaning glass or tilt and turn therefore no service charge would be payable by residents. General cleaning would be no more than any other block of flats, as the common areas when broken down between the overall number of units would be no greater than for any other development. With regards the major repair sinking fund you refer to, for the affordable rented flats, this would be met by the landlord (i.e. the not for profit housing association), in the case of shared ownership properties, the leaseholder would pay a monthly contribution. This is unlikely to be any higher than for other seafront developments in Brighton & Hove or such other seafront location. So, to summarise, the service charge would be no higher than for any other building requiring regular maintenance. Social housing landlords do not exist to lumber people with bills of £1000's of pounds, and that scenario is rare even in the private sector thanks to new legislation introduced in the form of the commonhold and leasehold reform act. So to confirm, yes, the flats will be affordable to low income households and families and the service charges you refer to are not an excuse to block affordable housing on the site.
Fiona wrote:
bob wrote: Shirley Earland wrote: Labour Councillors in Brighton were very keen for the Frank Gehry project to go ahead as it was in Hove, not Brighton. However, the Conservative councillors who lived in Hove, didn't want the project. As Labour is so keen to have this developement, have it in Brighton. We'll be quite happy to have it built on the old Pier ground, and have the Eye on the King Alfred Centre. I sent an email to the Labour Councillors, asking what infrastructure they were putting in place to support the massive influx of 750 homes. Needless to say, they declined to answer, as the answer was obviously 'NONE '.
Hmmmm. Quite possibly another Tory supporting Hove based 6 bed home owning millionaire nimby who doesn't want 'affordable homes' for anyone earning less than a pilot's salary within more than 2 miles of her home... or maybe not??
Grow up! How can this be affordable housing when the maintenance charges alone (to cover lifts, window cleaning, general cleaning, etc) will put them out of the reach of all but the very well off? Ask anyone who lives in a purpose built block and they either pay maintenance and a sinking fund or get lumbered with bills for several thousand out of the blue.
Lifts require replacement once every 30 years, roughly, so long as that they are regularly maintained and that the main operating elements are overhauled on a 10 yearly basis. Windows will be self cleaning glass or tilt and turn therefore no service charge would be payable by residents. General cleaning would be no more than any other block of flats, as the common areas when broken down between the overall number of units would be no greater than for any other development. With regards the major repair sinking fund you refer to, for the affordable rented flats, this would be met by the landlord (i.e. the not for profit housing association), in the case of shared ownership properties, the leaseholder would pay a monthly contribution. This is unlikely to be any higher than for other seafront developments in Brighton & Hove or such other seafront location. So, to summarise, the service charge would be no higher than for any other building requiring regular maintenance. Social housing landlords do not exist to lumber people with bills of £1000's of pounds, and that scenario is rare even in the private sector thanks to new legislation introduced in the form of the commonhold and leasehold reform act. So to confirm, yes, the flats will be affordable to low income households and families and the service charges you refer to are not an excuse to block affordable housing on the site.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
