The ArgusHey Gilmour, leave our cross alone (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Rock star's bid to remove monument from Hove seafront

The Argus: The memorial to Wilford Cole Verner in Medina Terrace, Hove The memorial to Wilford Cole Verner in Medina Terrace, Hove

Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour has got locals shouting “Hey You” about plans to move a historical monument.

The musician has been renovating his six-storey seafront mansion with wife Polly Samson since they bought it in 2009.

But the plans for the outbuildings to the rear of Karron Eubank's former £3 million home in Medina Terrace, Hove, have hit The Wall over a six-foot Victorian monument.

The couple have stirred up anger with a planning application to move the marble cross near the buildings, called the Coach House, about 20 metres so they can extend a canoe store.

Valerie Paynter, of Save Hove, said: “It’s not neighbourly; it’s a middle finger to local history.

“From the very start they have showed utter contempt for that cross. It’s a unique feature of the local townscape.

“They want to wilfully and selfishly hack into and damage local history - for a canoe.”

The controversy centres on a white monument to Wilford Cole Verner who served in the Royal Fusiliers and died aged 26. He was the younger brother of Ida Constance Verner, who used to live in nearby Victoria Terrace and used the coach house as a studio.

In the wall

The cross, which is at the far end of the development site, is currently embedded in the boundary wall with Medina Terrace.

When planning permission was approved to convert the former workshop in January it was agreed to keep it in place. But locals claim workers were only stopped last month from “hacking away” at the cross by a resident living nearby.

A further application has now been received by Brighton and Hove City Council from Hoveco, which has Mr Gilmour listed as a director, to move it.

Ewen Stoddart, of LCE Architects, said: “It will be our intention to have the cross fully repaired and restored to give a more permanent historical reference point to the property.”

Louise Stack, who has lived in Medina Terrace since the 1960s, said she believed there was a body under the cross.

Mr Stoddart said the firm had carried out a topography survey which showed “no evidence” to suspect a grave may be located in vicinity of the cross or the building.

Ida Verner

Ida Constance Verner was a figure and portrait painter who lived in Victoria Terrace, Hove.

She used the area to the rear of her home, known as the coach house, as her main studio.

Miss Verner is also believed to have had addresses in Brighton, London and South Devon.

She was the daughter of Colonel William John Verner, who was a keen falconer and friends of the Royal family.

Her work was widely displayed, including at the Royal Academy and Royal Society of Portrait Painters in London.

A number of her paintings are now in the possession of Brighton and Hove Museums. They include a portrait of

J.W. Lister who was the Hove Borough Librarian and Curator in the late 19th Century.

Verner House in Victoria Terrace is thought to have been built by her father.

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

The Argus: Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

The Argus: Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:11pm Tue 20 Nov 12

mimseycal says...

Sorry Mr Gilmour but that is part and parcel of buying a property with history. Some of the history cannot be moved!
Sorry Mr Gilmour but that is part and parcel of buying a property with history. Some of the history cannot be moved! mimseycal
  • Score: 0

5:16pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Hove Actually says...

This will go the way of the flint wall near Tesco's Hove or the Bronze windows in it's other branch.

Like our ornate street lighting,brighton council do not care about Hove's heritage
This will go the way of the flint wall near Tesco's Hove or the Bronze windows in it's other branch. Like our ornate street lighting,brighton council do not care about Hove's heritage Hove Actually
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Tue 20 Nov 12

elephantsandowls says...

Not endearing themselves to anyone in anyway.

Could we please have building regulations apply to everyone and limit favours to the very rich to a minimum?

If the planning application said leave the cross, leave it there.

and for a CANOE?
Not endearing themselves to anyone in anyway. Could we please have building regulations apply to everyone and limit favours to the very rich to a minimum? If the planning application said leave the cross, leave it there. and for a CANOE? elephantsandowls
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Tue 20 Nov 12

StyleCop says...

at one point these houses or the cross didn't exist in this location - get some perspective people!

The architect is saying they're willing to FULLY restore the monument and re-instating it in a more prominent position - which in my mind is a good thing. I've never even seen this blooming cross and I run past this site pretty much daily...

I think it's a little churlish to criticise such a motive even if it is for a canoe.

Smells like sour grapes to me.

Good on Mr Gilmore and his architects for at least being honest.

...oh, and Tim... all The Wall references? give it a rest eh... most of those were down to Roger Waters.
at one point these houses or the cross didn't exist in this location - get some perspective people! The architect is saying they're willing to FULLY restore the monument and re-instating it in a more prominent position - which in my mind is a good thing. I've never even seen this blooming cross and I run past this site pretty much daily... I think it's a little churlish to criticise such a motive even if it is for a canoe. Smells like sour grapes to me. Good on Mr Gilmore and his architects for at least being honest. ...oh, and Tim... all The Wall references? give it a rest eh... most of those were down to Roger Waters. StyleCop
  • Score: 0

5:31pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Gilmour and his stepson are examples of how priviledge breeds a belief that money and position can get you anything you want.
It's a pity that priviledge doesn't deliver a good education because both of them are pretty thick when it comes to fostering community relations.
Hey Gilmour, go back to London and take your canoes with you.
Gilmour and his stepson are examples of how priviledge breeds a belief that money and position can get you anything you want. It's a pity that priviledge doesn't deliver a good education because both of them are pretty thick when it comes to fostering community relations. Hey Gilmour, go back to London and take your canoes with you. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Tue 20 Nov 12

aat99 says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Gilmour and his stepson are examples of how priviledge breeds a belief that money and position can get you anything you want.
It's a pity that priviledge doesn't deliver a good education because both of them are pretty thick when it comes to fostering community relations.
Hey Gilmour, go back to London and take your canoes with you.
think if you actually knew Dave Gilmour you might have a different view ... but it's easy to get into a Daily Mail frenzy reading the Argus ...
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Gilmour and his stepson are examples of how priviledge breeds a belief that money and position can get you anything you want. It's a pity that priviledge doesn't deliver a good education because both of them are pretty thick when it comes to fostering community relations. Hey Gilmour, go back to London and take your canoes with you.[/p][/quote]think if you actually knew Dave Gilmour you might have a different view ... but it's easy to get into a Daily Mail frenzy reading the Argus ... aat99
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Tue 20 Nov 12

saveHOVE says...

StyleCop wrote:
at one point these houses or the cross didn't exist in this location - get some perspective people!

The architect is saying they're willing to FULLY restore the monument and re-instating it in a more prominent position - which in my mind is a good thing. I've never even seen this blooming cross and I run past this site pretty much daily...

I think it's a little churlish to criticise such a motive even if it is for a canoe.

Smells like sour grapes to me.

Good on Mr Gilmore and his architects for at least being honest.

...oh, and Tim... all The Wall references? give it a rest eh... most of those were down to Roger Waters.
It took rather a lot to get this 'honest' bit.

As you have never seen it and clearly not looked at the planning applications either, I take it you are a crawling, toadying celeb-worshiper.

The plan is to move it from the safety of that wall that never sees cars parked there, a cross that has survived two world wars and Chris Eubank's Hummer parking back there until now round to where cars can drive straight into it when parking - on the west wall of the studio building.

Wilford Cole Verner died in 1889. And the family were prominent. If you WOULD like to know anything about the history and planning apps. please feel free to look at the uploaded article and photos at www.savehove.wordpre
ss.com
[quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: at one point these houses or the cross didn't exist in this location - get some perspective people! The architect is saying they're willing to FULLY restore the monument and re-instating it in a more prominent position - which in my mind is a good thing. I've never even seen this blooming cross and I run past this site pretty much daily... I think it's a little churlish to criticise such a motive even if it is for a canoe. Smells like sour grapes to me. Good on Mr Gilmore and his architects for at least being honest. ...oh, and Tim... all The Wall references? give it a rest eh... most of those were down to Roger Waters.[/p][/quote]It took rather a lot to get this 'honest' bit. As you have never seen it and clearly not looked at the planning applications either, I take it you are a crawling, toadying celeb-worshiper. The plan is to move it from the safety of that wall that never sees cars parked there, a cross that has survived two world wars and Chris Eubank's Hummer parking back there until now round to where cars can drive straight into it when parking - on the west wall of the studio building. Wilford Cole Verner died in 1889. And the family were prominent. If you WOULD like to know anything about the history and planning apps. please feel free to look at the uploaded article and photos at www.savehove.wordpre ss.com saveHOVE
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Tue 20 Nov 12

ruberducker says...

us and them
he's brought the house sped a shed load of money on it,it will not be destroyed--its his bloody property.
think this council should be concerned with better things.
us and them he's brought the house sped a shed load of money on it,it will not be destroyed--its his bloody property. think this council should be concerned with better things. ruberducker
  • Score: 0

6:03pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Roundbill says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Gilmour and his stepson are examples of how priviledge breeds a belief that money and position can get you anything you want.
It's a pity that priviledge doesn't deliver a good education because both of them are pretty thick when it comes to fostering community relations.
Hey Gilmour, go back to London and take your canoes with you.
Does that "priviledge" include having the sort of education which teaches people how to spell everyday words?
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Gilmour and his stepson are examples of how priviledge breeds a belief that money and position can get you anything you want. It's a pity that priviledge doesn't deliver a good education because both of them are pretty thick when it comes to fostering community relations. Hey Gilmour, go back to London and take your canoes with you.[/p][/quote]Does that "priviledge" include having the sort of education which teaches people how to spell everyday words? Roundbill
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

yes, I can't spell that word.
I didn't have an Eton education, however, I do know what the Cenotaph is, unlike his idiot stepson who claimed he didn't know what it was for.
yes, I can't spell that word. I didn't have an Eton education, however, I do know what the Cenotaph is, unlike his idiot stepson who claimed he didn't know what it was for. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

6:17pm Tue 20 Nov 12

ShorehamBeachcomber says...

If its not one war memorial it's another
If its not one war memorial it's another ShorehamBeachcomber
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Tue 20 Nov 12

StyleCop says...

saveHOVE wrote:
StyleCop wrote: at one point these houses or the cross didn't exist in this location - get some perspective people! The architect is saying they're willing to FULLY restore the monument and re-instating it in a more prominent position - which in my mind is a good thing. I've never even seen this blooming cross and I run past this site pretty much daily... I think it's a little churlish to criticise such a motive even if it is for a canoe. Smells like sour grapes to me. Good on Mr Gilmore and his architects for at least being honest. ...oh, and Tim... all The Wall references? give it a rest eh... most of those were down to Roger Waters.
It took rather a lot to get this 'honest' bit. As you have never seen it and clearly not looked at the planning applications either, I take it you are a crawling, toadying celeb-worshiper. The plan is to move it from the safety of that wall that never sees cars parked there, a cross that has survived two world wars and Chris Eubank's Hummer parking back there until now round to where cars can drive straight into it when parking - on the west wall of the studio building. Wilford Cole Verner died in 1889. And the family were prominent. If you WOULD like to know anything about the history and planning apps. please feel free to look at the uploaded article and photos at www.savehove.wordpre ss.com
Making assumptions of ones motives is what gets people into these kind of siuations - Good Lord, I'm no more a toady celebrity worshipper as you are -I'm sure.

I've not looked at the plans you're right - I'm only commenting on what the newspaper is giving us as editorial content to make any kind of anlysis.

I can appreciate you're upset, But seriously - there's no need to throw mud, that won't get you anywhere.

I'm all for saving traditions and being respectful of ones heritage, but there's also some perspective required - if, like the article suggests, there's an intention to save the monument, renovate it and reposition it to a more prominent position thereby reinstating it's glory and prestige then surely that should be celebrated?

Like I said, I run past this spot routinely and have never, ever, been aware it existed -- until now... and it has pride of place where? - In a car park... if that's not disrespectful I'd like to know what is.

I can see from your blog that you're passionate about this but may I tentatively suggest that you're being rather short-sighted?

I don't mean to be cruel or mean or disrespect you or your intentions as they do seem genuinely honorable - but come on, leave it out... Dave Gilmore... a globally renowned & celebrated musician who has given as much to our cultural heritage as any other 20century artist and deserves some credit for being benevolent in his intentions... coupled with is widespread charitable donations to various national/internation
al organisations etc etc...

I'm sorry, but pull the other one...

And no, I repeat - I'm not being a toadying celebrity worshipper...
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: at one point these houses or the cross didn't exist in this location - get some perspective people! The architect is saying they're willing to FULLY restore the monument and re-instating it in a more prominent position - which in my mind is a good thing. I've never even seen this blooming cross and I run past this site pretty much daily... I think it's a little churlish to criticise such a motive even if it is for a canoe. Smells like sour grapes to me. Good on Mr Gilmore and his architects for at least being honest. ...oh, and Tim... all The Wall references? give it a rest eh... most of those were down to Roger Waters.[/p][/quote]It took rather a lot to get this 'honest' bit. As you have never seen it and clearly not looked at the planning applications either, I take it you are a crawling, toadying celeb-worshiper. The plan is to move it from the safety of that wall that never sees cars parked there, a cross that has survived two world wars and Chris Eubank's Hummer parking back there until now round to where cars can drive straight into it when parking - on the west wall of the studio building. Wilford Cole Verner died in 1889. And the family were prominent. If you WOULD like to know anything about the history and planning apps. please feel free to look at the uploaded article and photos at www.savehove.wordpre ss.com[/p][/quote]Making assumptions of ones motives is what gets people into these kind of siuations - Good Lord, I'm no more a toady celebrity worshipper as you are -I'm sure. I've not looked at the plans you're right - I'm only commenting on what the newspaper is giving us as editorial content to make any kind of anlysis. I can appreciate you're upset, But seriously - there's no need to throw mud, that won't get you anywhere. I'm all for saving traditions and being respectful of ones heritage, but there's also some perspective required - if, like the article suggests, there's an intention to save the monument, renovate it and reposition it to a more prominent position thereby reinstating it's glory and prestige then surely that should be celebrated? Like I said, I run past this spot routinely and have never, ever, been aware it existed -- until now... and it has pride of place where? - In a car park... if that's not disrespectful I'd like to know what is. I can see from your blog that you're passionate about this but may I tentatively suggest that you're being rather short-sighted? I don't mean to be cruel or mean or disrespect you or your intentions as they do seem genuinely honorable - but come on, leave it out... Dave Gilmore... a globally renowned & celebrated musician who has given as much to our cultural heritage as any other 20century artist and deserves some credit for being benevolent in his intentions... coupled with is widespread charitable donations to various national/internation al organisations etc etc... I'm sorry, but pull the other one... And no, I repeat - I'm not being a toadying celebrity worshipper... StyleCop
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

.....not really a Daily Mail frenzy, more of a reliance on the mitigation given in court explaining why a young man had no idea what the Cenotaph was.
Perhaps, Mr Gilmour doesn't know what a cross is either.
Why not pay a church £50,000 to have it installed in a church wall.....now that might get local support.
.....not really a Daily Mail frenzy, more of a reliance on the mitigation given in court explaining why a young man had no idea what the Cenotaph was. Perhaps, Mr Gilmour doesn't know what a cross is either. Why not pay a church £50,000 to have it installed in a church wall.....now that might get local support. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Tue 20 Nov 12

StyleCop says...

(I used to love Jimmy Saville... and look where that got me)
(I used to love Jimmy Saville... and look where that got me) StyleCop
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Tue 20 Nov 12

John Steed says...

much ado about nothing, firstly its because of a proposed extension to a canoe store not a canoe, just because its called that it does not nessacarily have to have a canoe in it, secondly it would be nice if it were left where it is but unless it it listed or protected it can be destroyed, moved or what ever.
memorials to our military are best in cemetariesengraved on war memorials etc, just because a member of the family was an artist and fancied having a stone in her back yard is not exactly earth shattering history, move the thing along the wall and get on with building work, now of course if it were home to a few newts.
much ado about nothing, firstly its because of a proposed extension to a canoe store not a canoe, just because its called that it does not nessacarily have to have a canoe in it, secondly it would be nice if it were left where it is but unless it it listed or protected it can be destroyed, moved or what ever. memorials to our military are best in cemetariesengraved on war memorials etc, just because a member of the family was an artist and fancied having a stone in her back yard is not exactly earth shattering history, move the thing along the wall and get on with building work, now of course if it were home to a few newts. John Steed
  • Score: 0

7:21pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Joshiman says...

Its on private land at the back of a block of flats surrounded by car spaces and garages.Basically its a car park owned by the residents.Doubt if anyone knew it existed,probably not even the residents.I have seen it.It could be left there but its not a tourist attraction nor anything else really.Its a cross
which the article suggests, "that there's an intention to save the monument, renovate it and reposition it to a more prominent position thereby reinstating it's glory and prestige then surely that should be celebrated?"More important issues to resolve in Hove than this.
Its on private land at the back of a block of flats surrounded by car spaces and garages.Basically its a car park owned by the residents.Doubt if anyone knew it existed,probably not even the residents.I have seen it.It could be left there but its not a tourist attraction nor anything else really.Its a cross which the article suggests, "that there's an intention to save the monument, renovate it and reposition it to a more prominent position thereby reinstating it's glory and prestige then surely that should be celebrated?"More important issues to resolve in Hove than this. Joshiman
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Tue 20 Nov 12

birthofanorange says...

@ Mr.Steed: Just for the sake of my sanity, do you mean that a 'canoe store' is not really used for such a purpose? Does that mean he could use it to store anything at all? Kidnapped members of the Illuminati....stuffe
d warthogs....a vast array of Subs of varying flavours?
I need to know - please.
@ Mr.Steed: Just for the sake of my sanity, do you mean that a 'canoe store' is not really used for such a purpose? Does that mean he could use it to store anything at all? Kidnapped members of the Illuminati....stuffe d warthogs....a vast array of Subs of varying flavours? I need to know - please. birthofanorange
  • Score: 0

7:49pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Angryoldman says...

I wouldnt want that tatty old stone in my garden. It would be down the tip in a flash.
I wouldnt want that tatty old stone in my garden. It would be down the tip in a flash. Angryoldman
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Ish1 says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Gilmour and his stepson are examples of how priviledge breeds a belief that money and position can get you anything you want.
It's a pity that priviledge doesn't deliver a good education because both of them are pretty thick when it comes to fostering community relations.
Hey Gilmour, go back to London and take your canoes with you.
What alot of rude nonsense you write.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Gilmour and his stepson are examples of how priviledge breeds a belief that money and position can get you anything you want. It's a pity that priviledge doesn't deliver a good education because both of them are pretty thick when it comes to fostering community relations. Hey Gilmour, go back to London and take your canoes with you.[/p][/quote]What alot of rude nonsense you write. Ish1
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Ish1 says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Gilmour and his stepson are examples of how priviledge breeds a belief that money and position can get you anything you want.
It's a pity that priviledge doesn't deliver a good education because both of them are pretty thick when it comes to fostering community relations.
Hey Gilmour, go back to London and take your canoes with you.
What alot of rude nonsense you write.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Gilmour and his stepson are examples of how priviledge breeds a belief that money and position can get you anything you want. It's a pity that priviledge doesn't deliver a good education because both of them are pretty thick when it comes to fostering community relations. Hey Gilmour, go back to London and take your canoes with you.[/p][/quote]What alot of rude nonsense you write. Ish1
  • Score: 0

9:05pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Ish1 says...

I am one of David Gilmour's nieghbours and am appalled at the criticism he has been subjected to particularly from Valerie Paynter who represents no one other than herself and appears to object to virtually any planning application.

I have lived in a flat overlooking the cross for nearly a decade and have never seen anyone admiring it for two reasons, the first being that it was hidden by dint of its location and second that it requires refurbishment
which David intends to carry out.

It is also pertinent to point out that the cross is located on private land and should anyone want to view it they will require our company's permission as our company owns the land next to it.

David and Polly Gilmour have done an excellent job in restoring their house next door to the cross which
we, being their neighbours are very pleased with.

They deserve to bee praised for their achievement in doing a magnificent job in restoring their house which we, their next door nieghbours are privileged to overlook.
I am one of David Gilmour's nieghbours and am appalled at the criticism he has been subjected to particularly from Valerie Paynter who represents no one other than herself and appears to object to virtually any planning application. I have lived in a flat overlooking the cross for nearly a decade and have never seen anyone admiring it for two reasons, the first being that it was hidden by dint of its location and second that it requires refurbishment which David intends to carry out. It is also pertinent to point out that the cross is located on private land and should anyone want to view it they will require our company's permission as our company owns the land next to it. David and Polly Gilmour have done an excellent job in restoring their house next door to the cross which we, being their neighbours are very pleased with. They deserve to bee praised for their achievement in doing a magnificent job in restoring their house which we, their next door nieghbours are privileged to overlook. Ish1
  • Score: 0

9:59pm Tue 20 Nov 12

hubby says...

All in all it's just another cross in the wall.
All in all it's just another cross in the wall. hubby
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Valerie Paynter says...

John Steed wrote:
much ado about nothing, firstly its because of a proposed extension to a canoe store not a canoe, just because its called that it does not nessacarily have to have a canoe in it, secondly it would be nice if it were left where it is but unless it it listed or protected it can be destroyed, moved or what ever.
memorials to our military are best in cemetariesengraved on war memorials etc, just because a member of the family was an artist and fancied having a stone in her back yard is not exactly earth shattering history, move the thing along the wall and get on with building work, now of course if it were home to a few newts.
The man died in 1889 and the chances are he was buried in that garden and not by his sister, but by his father. Much research is still to be done.

Tesco scanned the former burial ground for bodies before building the shed and carpark and found nothing to be there. They began their digging and up came the quite shallowly buried bodies.

The stone may or may not have been moved to its current location and the body may or may not be by it.

There is currently no canoe storage, just a wall he wants to put canoe storage against. He has planning consent for it. Now he wants it L-o-n-g-e-r and one suspects he does not like looking at the monument. Not sufficiently cool perhaps.

If he wants canoe storage he should put THAT on the western wall of the building and leave the century plus monument where it privately and peacefully sits facing the setting sun in the former garden area of his childhood home.
[quote][p][bold]John Steed[/bold] wrote: much ado about nothing, firstly its because of a proposed extension to a canoe store not a canoe, just because its called that it does not nessacarily have to have a canoe in it, secondly it would be nice if it were left where it is but unless it it listed or protected it can be destroyed, moved or what ever. memorials to our military are best in cemetariesengraved on war memorials etc, just because a member of the family was an artist and fancied having a stone in her back yard is not exactly earth shattering history, move the thing along the wall and get on with building work, now of course if it were home to a few newts.[/p][/quote]The man died in 1889 and the chances are he was buried in that garden and not by his sister, but by his father. Much research is still to be done. Tesco scanned the former burial ground for bodies before building the shed and carpark and found nothing to be there. They began their digging and up came the quite shallowly buried bodies. The stone may or may not have been moved to its current location and the body may or may not be by it. There is currently no canoe storage, just a wall he wants to put canoe storage against. He has planning consent for it. Now he wants it L-o-n-g-e-r and one suspects he does not like looking at the monument. Not sufficiently cool perhaps. If he wants canoe storage he should put THAT on the western wall of the building and leave the century plus monument where it privately and peacefully sits facing the setting sun in the former garden area of his childhood home. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 0

10:07pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Ish1 I think you will find that most war veterans who witnessed mr gilmours step son swinging from the Cenotaph far ruder than my comments.
Also the fact that the Eton/Oxbridge brat then claimed that he did not know it was a war memorial is incredulous.
That is plain rude and ignorant, but its nice that you like your neighbours. Perhaps if they were common lottery winners behaving in the same way you wouldn't be so fawning.
Ish1 I think you will find that most war veterans who witnessed mr gilmours step son swinging from the Cenotaph far ruder than my comments. Also the fact that the Eton/Oxbridge brat then claimed that he did not know it was a war memorial is incredulous. That is plain rude and ignorant, but its nice that you like your neighbours. Perhaps if they were common lottery winners behaving in the same way you wouldn't be so fawning. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

10:10pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Valerie Paynter says...

Ish1 wrote:
I am one of David Gilmour's nieghbours and am appalled at the criticism he has been subjected to particularly from Valerie Paynter who represents no one other than herself and appears to object to virtually any planning application.

I have lived in a flat overlooking the cross for nearly a decade and have never seen anyone admiring it for two reasons, the first being that it was hidden by dint of its location and second that it requires refurbishment
which David intends to carry out.

It is also pertinent to point out that the cross is located on private land and should anyone want to view it they will require our company's permission as our company owns the land next to it.

David and Polly Gilmour have done an excellent job in restoring their house next door to the cross which
we, being their neighbours are very pleased with.

They deserve to bee praised for their achievement in doing a magnificent job in restoring their house which we, their next door nieghbours are privileged to overlook.
Libellous tripe and the gush that follows should embarrass you to a fine blush.

Everyone was thrilled that the Gilmours did such a fine job on the house - not so thrilled that this listed building was embellished with odd railing at roof terrace level (although totally understandable). Do you suggest that anyone objected?

You will be in Spa Court of course. Sad that your block refused to allow Mr. Gilmour to pay for and install security gating to the car park, don't you agree?
[quote][p][bold]Ish1[/bold] wrote: I am one of David Gilmour's nieghbours and am appalled at the criticism he has been subjected to particularly from Valerie Paynter who represents no one other than herself and appears to object to virtually any planning application. I have lived in a flat overlooking the cross for nearly a decade and have never seen anyone admiring it for two reasons, the first being that it was hidden by dint of its location and second that it requires refurbishment which David intends to carry out. It is also pertinent to point out that the cross is located on private land and should anyone want to view it they will require our company's permission as our company owns the land next to it. David and Polly Gilmour have done an excellent job in restoring their house next door to the cross which we, being their neighbours are very pleased with. They deserve to bee praised for their achievement in doing a magnificent job in restoring their house which we, their next door nieghbours are privileged to overlook.[/p][/quote]Libellous tripe and the gush that follows should embarrass you to a fine blush. Everyone was thrilled that the Gilmours did such a fine job on the house - not so thrilled that this listed building was embellished with odd railing at roof terrace level (although totally understandable). Do you suggest that anyone objected? You will be in Spa Court of course. Sad that your block refused to allow Mr. Gilmour to pay for and install security gating to the car park, don't you agree? Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Tue 20 Nov 12

StyleCop says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
John Steed wrote:
much ado about nothing, firstly its because of a proposed extension to a canoe store not a canoe, just because its called that it does not nessacarily have to have a canoe in it, secondly it would be nice if it were left where it is but unless it it listed or protected it can be destroyed, moved or what ever.
memorials to our military are best in cemetariesengraved on war memorials etc, just because a member of the family was an artist and fancied having a stone in her back yard is not exactly earth shattering history, move the thing along the wall and get on with building work, now of course if it were home to a few newts.
The man died in 1889 and the chances are he was buried in that garden and not by his sister, but by his father. Much research is still to be done.

Tesco scanned the former burial ground for bodies before building the shed and carpark and found nothing to be there. They began their digging and up came the quite shallowly buried bodies.

The stone may or may not have been moved to its current location and the body may or may not be by it.

There is currently no canoe storage, just a wall he wants to put canoe storage against. He has planning consent for it. Now he wants it L-o-n-g-e-r and one suspects he does not like looking at the monument. Not sufficiently cool perhaps.

If he wants canoe storage he should put THAT on the western wall of the building and leave the century plus monument where it privately and peacefully sits facing the setting sun in the former garden area of his childhood home.
A garden which is now a car park Valerie - which only goes to prove my original point about getting some perspective and that things DO change.

I really do admire our cultural heritage and the need to keep tabs on it, and kudos to you for having the incentive to do the research but one should pick ones battles.

It's a shame the former garden and resting place of some departed soul/s is now car park, but to try and keep it thus is sadly already too late. If only you were around when the planning went in to cover the garden?

As a side note, were not the bones of Richard III dug up in a Leicester car park last month? You know there's a row about where they should be re-interred... oh the joy of archeological japery...

Anyway, back to Hove - Regardless of who owns the property, to which this Hove heritage monument belongs, the fact remains that they've offered to relocate it to a more appropriate place.

If the dead could speak, then maybe this one would ask to be moved to have a seaview - screw the setting sun... I can't see it now anyway because some inconsiderate property tycoon has built a load of dwellings in my way.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Steed[/bold] wrote: much ado about nothing, firstly its because of a proposed extension to a canoe store not a canoe, just because its called that it does not nessacarily have to have a canoe in it, secondly it would be nice if it were left where it is but unless it it listed or protected it can be destroyed, moved or what ever. memorials to our military are best in cemetariesengraved on war memorials etc, just because a member of the family was an artist and fancied having a stone in her back yard is not exactly earth shattering history, move the thing along the wall and get on with building work, now of course if it were home to a few newts.[/p][/quote]The man died in 1889 and the chances are he was buried in that garden and not by his sister, but by his father. Much research is still to be done. Tesco scanned the former burial ground for bodies before building the shed and carpark and found nothing to be there. They began their digging and up came the quite shallowly buried bodies. The stone may or may not have been moved to its current location and the body may or may not be by it. There is currently no canoe storage, just a wall he wants to put canoe storage against. He has planning consent for it. Now he wants it L-o-n-g-e-r and one suspects he does not like looking at the monument. Not sufficiently cool perhaps. If he wants canoe storage he should put THAT on the western wall of the building and leave the century plus monument where it privately and peacefully sits facing the setting sun in the former garden area of his childhood home.[/p][/quote]A garden which is now a car park Valerie - which only goes to prove my original point about getting some perspective and that things DO change. I really do admire our cultural heritage and the need to keep tabs on it, and kudos to you for having the incentive to do the research but one should pick ones battles. It's a shame the former garden and resting place of some departed soul/s is now car park, but to try and keep it thus is sadly already too late. If only you were around when the planning went in to cover the garden? As a side note, were not the bones of Richard III dug up in a Leicester car park last month? You know there's a row about where they should be re-interred... oh the joy of archeological japery... Anyway, back to Hove - Regardless of who owns the property, to which this Hove heritage monument belongs, the fact remains that they've offered to relocate it to a more appropriate place. If the dead could speak, then maybe this one would ask to be moved to have a seaview - screw the setting sun... I can't see it now anyway because some inconsiderate property tycoon has built a load of dwellings in my way. StyleCop
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Ish1 says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Ish1 wrote:
I am one of David Gilmour's nieghbours and am appalled at the criticism he has been subjected to particularly from Valerie Paynter who represents no one other than herself and appears to object to virtually any planning application.

I have lived in a flat overlooking the cross for nearly a decade and have never seen anyone admiring it for two reasons, the first being that it was hidden by dint of its location and second that it requires refurbishment
which David intends to carry out.

It is also pertinent to point out that the cross is located on private land and should anyone want to view it they will require our company's permission as our company owns the land next to it.

David and Polly Gilmour have done an excellent job in restoring their house next door to the cross which
we, being their neighbours are very pleased with.

They deserve to bee praised for their achievement in doing a magnificent job in restoring their house which we, their next door nieghbours are privileged to overlook.
Libellous tripe and the gush that follows should embarrass you to a fine blush.

Everyone was thrilled that the Gilmours did such a fine job on the house - not so thrilled that this listed building was embellished with odd railing at roof terrace level (although totally understandable). Do you suggest that anyone objected?

You will be in Spa Court of course. Sad that your block refused to allow Mr. Gilmour to pay for and install security gating to the car park, don't you agree?
It is regrettable, to put it mildly, that you don't check the facts before pontificating.

Had you looked up the meaning of libel you would have learned that it is the written form of the tort of defamation which is quite irrelevant.

Further, it was not Spa Court which objected to Mr Gilmour installing security gates which incidentally I, being a lessee in Spa Court suggested to him, but the board of Directors of Benham Court.

Perhaps you would care to explain what relevance the possible installation of security gates in the drive leading to Spa Court, Benham Court and the Coach House has to do with you as to the best of my knowledge you do not live in our area.

Further, as the cross is on our private land you and other members of the public require our permission
to walk on our land in order to view it.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ish1[/bold] wrote: I am one of David Gilmour's nieghbours and am appalled at the criticism he has been subjected to particularly from Valerie Paynter who represents no one other than herself and appears to object to virtually any planning application. I have lived in a flat overlooking the cross for nearly a decade and have never seen anyone admiring it for two reasons, the first being that it was hidden by dint of its location and second that it requires refurbishment which David intends to carry out. It is also pertinent to point out that the cross is located on private land and should anyone want to view it they will require our company's permission as our company owns the land next to it. David and Polly Gilmour have done an excellent job in restoring their house next door to the cross which we, being their neighbours are very pleased with. They deserve to bee praised for their achievement in doing a magnificent job in restoring their house which we, their next door nieghbours are privileged to overlook.[/p][/quote]Libellous tripe and the gush that follows should embarrass you to a fine blush. Everyone was thrilled that the Gilmours did such a fine job on the house - not so thrilled that this listed building was embellished with odd railing at roof terrace level (although totally understandable). Do you suggest that anyone objected? You will be in Spa Court of course. Sad that your block refused to allow Mr. Gilmour to pay for and install security gating to the car park, don't you agree?[/p][/quote]It is regrettable, to put it mildly, that you don't check the facts before pontificating. Had you looked up the meaning of libel you would have learned that it is the written form of the tort of defamation which is quite irrelevant. Further, it was not Spa Court which objected to Mr Gilmour installing security gates which incidentally I, being a lessee in Spa Court suggested to him, but the board of Directors of Benham Court. Perhaps you would care to explain what relevance the possible installation of security gates in the drive leading to Spa Court, Benham Court and the Coach House has to do with you as to the best of my knowledge you do not live in our area. Further, as the cross is on our private land you and other members of the public require our permission to walk on our land in order to view it. Ish1
  • Score: 0

1:40am Wed 21 Nov 12

John Steed says...

the reuse of burial ground is nothing new, to create the short length of dual carriageway in malling street lewes involved the removal of a large section of cemetary, the many unearthed remains were reintered elsewhere, the construction of the north portal of the cuifail tunnel resulted in a further 4 skeltons that were reintered elsewhere, a job I was on in bond street, brighton in the late 70's revealed a couple of coffins, but to be fair there may or maynot be a body buried by this cross. the reality is its for the owner of the land to decide what they want to do with it not the public, not the owners of adjacent land, and not groups that may or maynot want security gates
the reuse of burial ground is nothing new, to create the short length of dual carriageway in malling street lewes involved the removal of a large section of cemetary, the many unearthed remains were reintered elsewhere, the construction of the north portal of the cuifail tunnel resulted in a further 4 skeltons that were reintered elsewhere, a job I was on in bond street, brighton in the late 70's revealed a couple of coffins, but to be fair there may or maynot be a body buried by this cross. the reality is its for the owner of the land to decide what they want to do with it not the public, not the owners of adjacent land, and not groups that may or maynot want security gates John Steed
  • Score: 0

9:00am Wed 21 Nov 12

Stoves says...

If he owns the wall let him do whatever he wants to it.

How often do you complainers go and hold vigil at this crass looking thing?
If he owns the wall let him do whatever he wants to it. How often do you complainers go and hold vigil at this crass looking thing? Stoves
  • Score: 0

9:44am Wed 21 Nov 12

StyleCop says...

Ish1 wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Ish1 wrote: I am one of David Gilmour's nieghbours and am appalled at the criticism he has been subjected to particularly from Valerie Paynter who represents no one other than herself and appears to object to virtually any planning application. I have lived in a flat overlooking the cross for nearly a decade and have never seen anyone admiring it for two reasons, the first being that it was hidden by dint of its location and second that it requires refurbishment which David intends to carry out. It is also pertinent to point out that the cross is located on private land and should anyone want to view it they will require our company's permission as our company owns the land next to it. David and Polly Gilmour have done an excellent job in restoring their house next door to the cross which we, being their neighbours are very pleased with. They deserve to bee praised for their achievement in doing a magnificent job in restoring their house which we, their next door nieghbours are privileged to overlook.
Libellous tripe and the gush that follows should embarrass you to a fine blush. Everyone was thrilled that the Gilmours did such a fine job on the house - not so thrilled that this listed building was embellished with odd railing at roof terrace level (although totally understandable). Do you suggest that anyone objected? You will be in Spa Court of course. Sad that your block refused to allow Mr. Gilmour to pay for and install security gating to the car park, don't you agree?
It is regrettable, to put it mildly, that you don't check the facts before pontificating. Had you looked up the meaning of libel you would have learned that it is the written form of the tort of defamation which is quite irrelevant. Further, it was not Spa Court which objected to Mr Gilmour installing security gates which incidentally I, being a lessee in Spa Court suggested to him, but the board of Directors of Benham Court. Perhaps you would care to explain what relevance the possible installation of security gates in the drive leading to Spa Court, Benham Court and the Coach House has to do with you as to the best of my knowledge you do not live in our area. Further, as the cross is on our private land you and other members of the public require our permission to walk on our land in order to view it.
In fairness Valerie is defending the wider view of our cultural heritage, rightly or wrongly, whether this cross is of cultural significance is debateable - clearly Valerie is of the opinion it is.

That said, it's a shame such a monument isn't available for public consumption due to it's inconspicuous location - if indeed it is relevant.

It's not entirely clear where the relocation site is likely to be - or if it's actually allowed - as according to the Rhetoric of the objectionist/s it's not supposed to be moved/touched in the first place.

It strikes me that if the owner of this item (on their property / IF its on their property ) is true to their word and is intending to renovate & relocate then it makes sense that the local authorities will need to get involved to determine.

1. WHO it belongs to
2. WHERE it can be moved to
3. IF it's a former burial site

...and then seek the appropriate mandates...

Alternatively, they could just plough ahead and demolish the offending item and carry on regardless - reaping the consequences and wrath of a local Historian - who may or may not give up in defeat...?

Either way, both paths will cause some upset on their behalf and stall the renovations of a property they've invested time and money into...

again, regardless of who it is, (no toadying here) - it's their premises and so long as they abide by local planning laws and consent then there should be no issues.
[quote][p][bold]Ish1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ish1[/bold] wrote: I am one of David Gilmour's nieghbours and am appalled at the criticism he has been subjected to particularly from Valerie Paynter who represents no one other than herself and appears to object to virtually any planning application. I have lived in a flat overlooking the cross for nearly a decade and have never seen anyone admiring it for two reasons, the first being that it was hidden by dint of its location and second that it requires refurbishment which David intends to carry out. It is also pertinent to point out that the cross is located on private land and should anyone want to view it they will require our company's permission as our company owns the land next to it. David and Polly Gilmour have done an excellent job in restoring their house next door to the cross which we, being their neighbours are very pleased with. They deserve to bee praised for their achievement in doing a magnificent job in restoring their house which we, their next door nieghbours are privileged to overlook.[/p][/quote]Libellous tripe and the gush that follows should embarrass you to a fine blush. Everyone was thrilled that the Gilmours did such a fine job on the house - not so thrilled that this listed building was embellished with odd railing at roof terrace level (although totally understandable). Do you suggest that anyone objected? You will be in Spa Court of course. Sad that your block refused to allow Mr. Gilmour to pay for and install security gating to the car park, don't you agree?[/p][/quote]It is regrettable, to put it mildly, that you don't check the facts before pontificating. Had you looked up the meaning of libel you would have learned that it is the written form of the tort of defamation which is quite irrelevant. Further, it was not Spa Court which objected to Mr Gilmour installing security gates which incidentally I, being a lessee in Spa Court suggested to him, but the board of Directors of Benham Court. Perhaps you would care to explain what relevance the possible installation of security gates in the drive leading to Spa Court, Benham Court and the Coach House has to do with you as to the best of my knowledge you do not live in our area. Further, as the cross is on our private land you and other members of the public require our permission to walk on our land in order to view it.[/p][/quote]In fairness Valerie is defending the wider view of our cultural heritage, rightly or wrongly, whether this cross is of cultural significance is debateable - clearly Valerie is of the opinion it is. That said, it's a shame such a monument isn't available for public consumption due to it's inconspicuous location - if indeed it is relevant. It's not entirely clear where the relocation site is likely to be - or if it's actually allowed - as according to the Rhetoric of the objectionist/s it's not supposed to be moved/touched in the first place. It strikes me that if the owner of this item (on their property / IF its on their property [which is also contested from some accounts]) is true to their word and is intending to renovate & relocate then it makes sense that the local authorities will need to get involved to determine. 1. WHO it belongs to 2. WHERE it can be moved to 3. IF it's a former burial site ...and then seek the appropriate mandates... Alternatively, they could just plough ahead and demolish the offending item and carry on regardless - reaping the consequences and wrath of a local Historian - who may or may not give up in defeat...? Either way, both paths will cause some upset on their behalf and stall the renovations of a property they've invested time and money into... again, regardless of who it is, (no toadying here) - it's their premises and so long as they abide by local planning laws and consent then there should be no issues. StyleCop
  • Score: 0

9:49am Wed 21 Nov 12

nosolution says...

Gilmour will only do what suits him anyway with 2fingers up at anyone who thinks differently.Just another jumped-up popstar who has got away with telling the sheep of society what and how to think via his songs without impunity.The cross is vitually a war memorial and should be treated as sacrosant.Oh no I forgot,gilmour is too used to telling others what to do and not listening to reason.High time that places of archaelogical and historical significance were protected from selfish developers like it is in Italy who rely on their sites for Tourism..
Gilmour will only do what suits him anyway with 2fingers up at anyone who thinks differently.Just another jumped-up popstar who has got away with telling the sheep of society what and how to think via his songs without impunity.The cross is vitually a war memorial and should be treated as sacrosant.Oh no I forgot,gilmour is too used to telling others what to do and not listening to reason.High time that places of archaelogical and historical significance were protected from selfish developers like it is in Italy who rely on their sites for Tourism.. nosolution
  • Score: 0

10:27am Wed 21 Nov 12

pinky1 says...

I think that as a lot of people have pointed out we did't even know that the cross was there..? so if it not going to be seen by lots of people than what's the point..! if so many people are that bothered about it why don't they club together and buy it off David and sight it on the seafront so that we can all see it...! I think that the people of Hove and Brighton should leave him alone after all in did deicide to make Hove is home the man is a living legend and should have the right to spend his hard earned money how and when he likes...!!! so if you people what it to stay then put up or shut up......!!
I think that as a lot of people have pointed out we did't even know that the cross was there..? so if it not going to be seen by lots of people than what's the point..! if so many people are that bothered about it why don't they club together and buy it off David and sight it on the seafront so that we can all see it...! I think that the people of Hove and Brighton should leave him alone after all in did deicide to make Hove is home the man is a living legend and should have the right to spend his hard earned money how and when he likes...!!! so if you people what it to stay then put up or shut up......!! pinky1
  • Score: 0

10:33am Wed 21 Nov 12

sbiscorrupt says...

"Relax
I'll need some information first
Just the basic facts
Can you show me where it hurts?"....

Maybe it's time for some people to become 'comfortably numb'!

Why get worked up over nothing and just let him get on with the improvements ...
"Relax I'll need some information first Just the basic facts Can you show me where it hurts?".... Maybe it's time for some people to become 'comfortably numb'! Why get worked up over nothing and just let him get on with the improvements ... sbiscorrupt
  • Score: 0

11:35am Wed 21 Nov 12

saveHOVE says...

For the benefit of those commenting some clarifications:

1. The Verner research has been ongoing over a more than three year period now and is being used now to highlight a problem. A number of Esplanade residents have been closely associated with the saveHOVE work since begun in 2005. We have worked together on a number of issues, both in the Esplanade area and elsewhere. Valerie Paynter is not some kind of Superwoman, acting alone. It's not a physical possibility!

2. Gilmour owns the ground area/building, NOT THE WALL!

It is a party wall in which an object, historically linked to no. 2 Victoria Terrace, is embedded. Ownership of the wall and its embedded memorial cross/former or existing headstone are a legal issue.

2. Gilmour already has planning consent for the music studio (great, no problem) and for canoe storage along the wall, stopping short of the cross (foolish on security grounds, but no problem). He was specifically required by planning consent to leave the cross alone.

3. His people have badly damaged the surround of the cross and he has put in a fresh application to extend the canoe storage over the area where the cross is embedded in the wall and to move the cross elsewhere. He in fact wants to move it to the west wall of the studio where cars park and where they could drive straight into it. That wall was damaged in the past by exactly that.

It is not a suitable relocation plan. There was no reason whatsoever to touch it. Certainly not without sorting out continuous party wall ownership with residents of Medina Terrace beforehand.

The wall was probably first built with Medina Terrace.

4. There are ongoing issues with his neighbours over the way he is implementing his existing planning consent for the studio (roof height) and compliance (not) with enforcement requests concerning the bike storage 'beach hut', and now for what he wants to do along the wall.
For the benefit of those commenting some clarifications: 1. The Verner research has been ongoing over a more than three year period now and is being used now to highlight a problem. A number of Esplanade residents have been closely associated with the saveHOVE work since begun in 2005. We have worked together on a number of issues, both in the Esplanade area and elsewhere. Valerie Paynter is not some kind of Superwoman, acting alone. It's not a physical possibility! 2. Gilmour owns the ground area/building, NOT THE WALL! It is a party wall in which an object, historically linked to no. 2 Victoria Terrace, is embedded. Ownership of the wall and its embedded memorial cross/former or existing headstone are a legal issue. 2. Gilmour already has planning consent for the music studio (great, no problem) and for canoe storage along the wall, stopping short of the cross (foolish on security grounds, but no problem). He was specifically required by planning consent to leave the cross alone. 3. His people have badly damaged the surround of the cross and he has put in a fresh application to extend the canoe storage over the area where the cross is embedded in the wall and to move the cross elsewhere. He in fact wants to move it to the west wall of the studio where cars park and where they could drive straight into it. That wall was damaged in the past by exactly that. It is not a suitable relocation plan. There was no reason whatsoever to touch it. Certainly not without sorting out continuous party wall ownership with residents of Medina Terrace beforehand. The wall was probably first built with Medina Terrace. 4. There are ongoing issues with his neighbours over the way he is implementing his existing planning consent for the studio (roof height) and compliance (not) with enforcement requests concerning the bike storage 'beach hut', and now for what he wants to do along the wall. saveHOVE
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Fairfax Sakes says...

Turn the hoses on him!
Turn the hoses on him! Fairfax Sakes
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Wed 21 Nov 12

StyleCop says...

saveHOVE wrote:
For the benefit of those commenting some clarifications: 1. The Verner research has been ongoing over a more than three year period now and is being used now to highlight a problem. A number of Esplanade residents have been closely associated with the saveHOVE work since begun in 2005. We have worked together on a number of issues, both in the Esplanade area and elsewhere. Valerie Paynter is not some kind of Superwoman, acting alone. It's not a physical possibility! 2. Gilmour owns the ground area/building, NOT THE WALL! It is a party wall in which an object, historically linked to no. 2 Victoria Terrace, is embedded. Ownership of the wall and its embedded memorial cross/former or existing headstone are a legal issue. 2. Gilmour already has planning consent for the music studio (great, no problem) and for canoe storage along the wall, stopping short of the cross (foolish on security grounds, but no problem). He was specifically required by planning consent to leave the cross alone. 3. His people have badly damaged the surround of the cross and he has put in a fresh application to extend the canoe storage over the area where the cross is embedded in the wall and to move the cross elsewhere. He in fact wants to move it to the west wall of the studio where cars park and where they could drive straight into it. That wall was damaged in the past by exactly that. It is not a suitable relocation plan. There was no reason whatsoever to touch it. Certainly not without sorting out continuous party wall ownership with residents of Medina Terrace beforehand. The wall was probably first built with Medina Terrace. 4. There are ongoing issues with his neighbours over the way he is implementing his existing planning consent for the studio (roof height) and compliance (not) with enforcement requests concerning the bike storage 'beach hut', and now for what he wants to do along the wall.
Great clarification Valerie/SaveHOVE collective... and hats off for the work you do for the Community...

(I'm not so sure about the Cage Shaking/Saber rattling mind you) :)

It's quite clear then that this issue regarding the stone cross boils down to;

1. The party wall question (which can be dealt with and changed via legal avenues )

2. The onorous momument's relocation plan - which is or is not suitable - and... as this article shows - highly subjective.

I would agree the to move it to the western wall, (still within the confines of the private grounds and not on full public display), does strike me as odd...

...and the issues asides regarding planning - well. quite frankly, they are always going to polarise a neighbourhood due to Nimby-ism.

I would have thought, the most appropriate course of action is to stop the heel-digging and mud-slinging and for the benefit of everyones sanity you'd be better placed putting your energies into joining forces with Gilmore crew and petitioning the Council to find a suitable, nearby location where such a monument can be enjoyed by all.

If it is such an important piece of local heritage that is - which we've only got your word for...

...prior to this article I'd never even heard of the Verners, and I'm sure if you were to quiz random members of the public up and down our great land you'd probably find that the vast majority hadn't either - but may well have heard of Mr Gilmore or Ewbank - as they are, as much as you'll no doubt rail against, part of our current cultural heritage, and may well deserve as much recognition as the Verner family?

Not that I'm vouching for common celebrity here - just pointing out - again - that times move on... by all means learn from the past but we still need to look to the future - and change, regardless of how you feel about it, is inevitable I'm afraid...
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: For the benefit of those commenting some clarifications: 1. The Verner research has been ongoing over a more than three year period now and is being used now to highlight a problem. A number of Esplanade residents have been closely associated with the saveHOVE work since begun in 2005. We have worked together on a number of issues, both in the Esplanade area and elsewhere. Valerie Paynter is not some kind of Superwoman, acting alone. It's not a physical possibility! 2. Gilmour owns the ground area/building, NOT THE WALL! It is a party wall in which an object, historically linked to no. 2 Victoria Terrace, is embedded. Ownership of the wall and its embedded memorial cross/former or existing headstone are a legal issue. 2. Gilmour already has planning consent for the music studio (great, no problem) and for canoe storage along the wall, stopping short of the cross (foolish on security grounds, but no problem). He was specifically required by planning consent to leave the cross alone. 3. His people have badly damaged the surround of the cross and he has put in a fresh application to extend the canoe storage over the area where the cross is embedded in the wall and to move the cross elsewhere. He in fact wants to move it to the west wall of the studio where cars park and where they could drive straight into it. That wall was damaged in the past by exactly that. It is not a suitable relocation plan. There was no reason whatsoever to touch it. Certainly not without sorting out continuous party wall ownership with residents of Medina Terrace beforehand. The wall was probably first built with Medina Terrace. 4. There are ongoing issues with his neighbours over the way he is implementing his existing planning consent for the studio (roof height) and compliance (not) with enforcement requests concerning the bike storage 'beach hut', and now for what he wants to do along the wall.[/p][/quote]Great clarification Valerie/SaveHOVE collective... and hats off for the work you do for the Community... (I'm not so sure about the Cage Shaking/Saber rattling mind you) :) It's quite clear then that this issue regarding the stone cross boils down to; 1. The party wall question (which can be dealt with and changed via legal avenues [which you yourself point out]) 2. The onorous momument's relocation plan - which is or is not suitable - and... as this article shows - highly subjective. I would agree the to move it to the western wall, (still within the confines of the private grounds and not on full public display), does strike me as odd... ...and the issues asides regarding planning - well. quite frankly, they are always going to polarise a neighbourhood due to Nimby-ism. I would have thought, the most appropriate course of action is to stop the heel-digging and mud-slinging and for the benefit of everyones sanity you'd be better placed putting your energies into joining forces with Gilmore crew and petitioning the Council to find a suitable, nearby location where such a monument can be enjoyed by all. If it is such an important piece of local heritage that is - which we've only got your word for... ...prior to this article I'd never even heard of the Verners, and I'm sure if you were to quiz random members of the public up and down our great land you'd probably find that the vast majority hadn't either - but may well have heard of Mr Gilmore or Ewbank - as they are, as much as you'll no doubt rail against, part of our current cultural heritage, and may well deserve as much recognition as the Verner family? Not that I'm vouching for common celebrity here - just pointing out - again - that times move on... by all means learn from the past but we still need to look to the future - and change, regardless of how you feel about it, is inevitable I'm afraid... StyleCop
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Nosfaratu says...

Please use your Email spell checker when composing these letters.

Am I too late to join this conservation !
Please use your Email spell checker when composing these letters. Am I too late to join this conservation ! Nosfaratu
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Wed 21 Nov 12

VoodooGangbanger says...

saveHOVE wrote:
StyleCop wrote:
at one point these houses or the cross didn't exist in this location - get some perspective people!

The architect is saying they're willing to FULLY restore the monument and re-instating it in a more prominent position - which in my mind is a good thing. I've never even seen this blooming cross and I run past this site pretty much daily...

I think it's a little churlish to criticise such a motive even if it is for a canoe.

Smells like sour grapes to me.

Good on Mr Gilmore and his architects for at least being honest.

...oh, and Tim... all The Wall references? give it a rest eh... most of those were down to Roger Waters.
It took rather a lot to get this 'honest' bit.

As you have never seen it and clearly not looked at the planning applications either, I take it you are a crawling, toadying celeb-worshiper.

The plan is to move it from the safety of that wall that never sees cars parked there, a cross that has survived two world wars and Chris Eubank's Hummer parking back there until now round to where cars can drive straight into it when parking - on the west wall of the studio building.

Wilford Cole Verner died in 1889. And the family were prominent. If you WOULD like to know anything about the history and planning apps. please feel free to look at the uploaded article and photos at www.savehove.wordpre

ss.com
actually if you knew any history about the cross it was on the other side of the property and later moved, it was in memory of the woman's brother,and not only is it recorded to have been moved from the now none existing wall when the original building was made, converted from a garden but any idiot could tell by looking at the brick work alone and the people causing trouble have no right to ownership in the least.

This is just some crazy resident that has a wild hair up their **** about builders working.
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: at one point these houses or the cross didn't exist in this location - get some perspective people! The architect is saying they're willing to FULLY restore the monument and re-instating it in a more prominent position - which in my mind is a good thing. I've never even seen this blooming cross and I run past this site pretty much daily... I think it's a little churlish to criticise such a motive even if it is for a canoe. Smells like sour grapes to me. Good on Mr Gilmore and his architects for at least being honest. ...oh, and Tim... all The Wall references? give it a rest eh... most of those were down to Roger Waters.[/p][/quote]It took rather a lot to get this 'honest' bit. As you have never seen it and clearly not looked at the planning applications either, I take it you are a crawling, toadying celeb-worshiper. The plan is to move it from the safety of that wall that never sees cars parked there, a cross that has survived two world wars and Chris Eubank's Hummer parking back there until now round to where cars can drive straight into it when parking - on the west wall of the studio building. Wilford Cole Verner died in 1889. And the family were prominent. If you WOULD like to know anything about the history and planning apps. please feel free to look at the uploaded article and photos at www.savehove.wordpre ss.com[/p][/quote]actually if you knew any history about the cross it was on the other side of the property and later moved, it was in memory of the woman's brother,and not only is it recorded to have been moved from the now none existing wall when the original building was made, converted from a garden but any idiot could tell by looking at the brick work alone and the people causing trouble have no right to ownership in the least. This is just some crazy resident that has a wild hair up their **** about builders working. VoodooGangbanger
  • Score: 0

10:16pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Valerie Paynter says...

StyleCop wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
For the benefit of those commenting some clarifications: 1. The Verner research has been ongoing over a more than three year period now and is being used now to highlight a problem. A number of Esplanade residents have been closely associated with the saveHOVE work since begun in 2005. We have worked together on a number of issues, both in the Esplanade area and elsewhere. Valerie Paynter is not some kind of Superwoman, acting alone. It's not a physical possibility! 2. Gilmour owns the ground area/building, NOT THE WALL! It is a party wall in which an object, historically linked to no. 2 Victoria Terrace, is embedded. Ownership of the wall and its embedded memorial cross/former or existing headstone are a legal issue. 2. Gilmour already has planning consent for the music studio (great, no problem) and for canoe storage along the wall, stopping short of the cross (foolish on security grounds, but no problem). He was specifically required by planning consent to leave the cross alone. 3. His people have badly damaged the surround of the cross and he has put in a fresh application to extend the canoe storage over the area where the cross is embedded in the wall and to move the cross elsewhere. He in fact wants to move it to the west wall of the studio where cars park and where they could drive straight into it. That wall was damaged in the past by exactly that. It is not a suitable relocation plan. There was no reason whatsoever to touch it. Certainly not without sorting out continuous party wall ownership with residents of Medina Terrace beforehand. The wall was probably first built with Medina Terrace. 4. There are ongoing issues with his neighbours over the way he is implementing his existing planning consent for the studio (roof height) and compliance (not) with enforcement requests concerning the bike storage 'beach hut', and now for what he wants to do along the wall.
Great clarification Valerie/SaveHOVE collective... and hats off for the work you do for the Community...

(I'm not so sure about the Cage Shaking/Saber rattling mind you) :)

It's quite clear then that this issue regarding the stone cross boils down to;

1. The party wall question (which can be dealt with and changed via legal avenues )

2. The onorous momument's relocation plan - which is or is not suitable - and... as this article shows - highly subjective.

I would agree the to move it to the western wall, (still within the confines of the private grounds and not on full public display), does strike me as odd...

...and the issues asides regarding planning - well. quite frankly, they are always going to polarise a neighbourhood due to Nimby-ism.

I would have thought, the most appropriate course of action is to stop the heel-digging and mud-slinging and for the benefit of everyones sanity you'd be better placed putting your energies into joining forces with Gilmore crew and petitioning the Council to find a suitable, nearby location where such a monument can be enjoyed by all.

If it is such an important piece of local heritage that is - which we've only got your word for...

...prior to this article I'd never even heard of the Verners, and I'm sure if you were to quiz random members of the public up and down our great land you'd probably find that the vast majority hadn't either - but may well have heard of Mr Gilmore or Ewbank - as they are, as much as you'll no doubt rail against, part of our current cultural heritage, and may well deserve as much recognition as the Verner family?

Not that I'm vouching for common celebrity here - just pointing out - again - that times move on... by all means learn from the past but we still need to look to the future - and change, regardless of how you feel about it, is inevitable I'm afraid...
Are you suggesting that celebrity equals entitlement above the law? Even if planning law which is so maligned but which keeps things ordered and sane.

Lack of knowledge of Hove history on anyone's part does not equate to insignificance.

We are working on the lack of historic detail.....someone has to.
[quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: For the benefit of those commenting some clarifications: 1. The Verner research has been ongoing over a more than three year period now and is being used now to highlight a problem. A number of Esplanade residents have been closely associated with the saveHOVE work since begun in 2005. We have worked together on a number of issues, both in the Esplanade area and elsewhere. Valerie Paynter is not some kind of Superwoman, acting alone. It's not a physical possibility! 2. Gilmour owns the ground area/building, NOT THE WALL! It is a party wall in which an object, historically linked to no. 2 Victoria Terrace, is embedded. Ownership of the wall and its embedded memorial cross/former or existing headstone are a legal issue. 2. Gilmour already has planning consent for the music studio (great, no problem) and for canoe storage along the wall, stopping short of the cross (foolish on security grounds, but no problem). He was specifically required by planning consent to leave the cross alone. 3. His people have badly damaged the surround of the cross and he has put in a fresh application to extend the canoe storage over the area where the cross is embedded in the wall and to move the cross elsewhere. He in fact wants to move it to the west wall of the studio where cars park and where they could drive straight into it. That wall was damaged in the past by exactly that. It is not a suitable relocation plan. There was no reason whatsoever to touch it. Certainly not without sorting out continuous party wall ownership with residents of Medina Terrace beforehand. The wall was probably first built with Medina Terrace. 4. There are ongoing issues with his neighbours over the way he is implementing his existing planning consent for the studio (roof height) and compliance (not) with enforcement requests concerning the bike storage 'beach hut', and now for what he wants to do along the wall.[/p][/quote]Great clarification Valerie/SaveHOVE collective... and hats off for the work you do for the Community... (I'm not so sure about the Cage Shaking/Saber rattling mind you) :) It's quite clear then that this issue regarding the stone cross boils down to; 1. The party wall question (which can be dealt with and changed via legal avenues [which you yourself point out]) 2. The onorous momument's relocation plan - which is or is not suitable - and... as this article shows - highly subjective. I would agree the to move it to the western wall, (still within the confines of the private grounds and not on full public display), does strike me as odd... ...and the issues asides regarding planning - well. quite frankly, they are always going to polarise a neighbourhood due to Nimby-ism. I would have thought, the most appropriate course of action is to stop the heel-digging and mud-slinging and for the benefit of everyones sanity you'd be better placed putting your energies into joining forces with Gilmore crew and petitioning the Council to find a suitable, nearby location where such a monument can be enjoyed by all. If it is such an important piece of local heritage that is - which we've only got your word for... ...prior to this article I'd never even heard of the Verners, and I'm sure if you were to quiz random members of the public up and down our great land you'd probably find that the vast majority hadn't either - but may well have heard of Mr Gilmore or Ewbank - as they are, as much as you'll no doubt rail against, part of our current cultural heritage, and may well deserve as much recognition as the Verner family? Not that I'm vouching for common celebrity here - just pointing out - again - that times move on... by all means learn from the past but we still need to look to the future - and change, regardless of how you feel about it, is inevitable I'm afraid...[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that celebrity equals entitlement above the law? Even if planning law which is so maligned but which keeps things ordered and sane. Lack of knowledge of Hove history on anyone's part does not equate to insignificance. We are working on the lack of historic detail.....someone has to. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 0

10:24pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Valerie Paynter says...

VoodooGangbanger wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
StyleCop wrote:
at one point these houses or the cross didn't exist in this location - get some perspective people!

The architect is saying they're willing to FULLY restore the monument and re-instating it in a more prominent position - which in my mind is a good thing. I've never even seen this blooming cross and I run past this site pretty much daily...

I think it's a little churlish to criticise such a motive even if it is for a canoe.

Smells like sour grapes to me.

Good on Mr Gilmore and his architects for at least being honest.

...oh, and Tim... all The Wall references? give it a rest eh... most of those were down to Roger Waters.
It took rather a lot to get this 'honest' bit.

As you have never seen it and clearly not looked at the planning applications either, I take it you are a crawling, toadying celeb-worshiper.

The plan is to move it from the safety of that wall that never sees cars parked there, a cross that has survived two world wars and Chris Eubank's Hummer parking back there until now round to where cars can drive straight into it when parking - on the west wall of the studio building.

Wilford Cole Verner died in 1889. And the family were prominent. If you WOULD like to know anything about the history and planning apps. please feel free to look at the uploaded article and photos at www.savehove.wordpre


ss.com
actually if you knew any history about the cross it was on the other side of the property and later moved, it was in memory of the woman's brother,and not only is it recorded to have been moved from the now none existing wall when the original building was made, converted from a garden but any idiot could tell by looking at the brick work alone and the people causing trouble have no right to ownership in the least.

This is just some crazy resident that has a wild hair up their **** about builders working.
We know very well that it was Constance Ida Verner's brother. It is in the article on the saveHOVE website.

There is no documentation currently available, unless you can provide chapter and verse, to say squat about the cross being "moved from the other side of the property".

The studio building was built in part of the garden behind 2 Victoria Gardens, not all of it. The garden extended to the Esplanade. The studio ends behind 3 Medina Terrace and the garden ended behind 8 Medina Terrace.

WHERE is it "recorded to have been moved from the now none existing wall when the original building was made..." Prove it. Or is this empty bluff.
[quote][p][bold]VoodooGangbanger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: at one point these houses or the cross didn't exist in this location - get some perspective people! The architect is saying they're willing to FULLY restore the monument and re-instating it in a more prominent position - which in my mind is a good thing. I've never even seen this blooming cross and I run past this site pretty much daily... I think it's a little churlish to criticise such a motive even if it is for a canoe. Smells like sour grapes to me. Good on Mr Gilmore and his architects for at least being honest. ...oh, and Tim... all The Wall references? give it a rest eh... most of those were down to Roger Waters.[/p][/quote]It took rather a lot to get this 'honest' bit. As you have never seen it and clearly not looked at the planning applications either, I take it you are a crawling, toadying celeb-worshiper. The plan is to move it from the safety of that wall that never sees cars parked there, a cross that has survived two world wars and Chris Eubank's Hummer parking back there until now round to where cars can drive straight into it when parking - on the west wall of the studio building. Wilford Cole Verner died in 1889. And the family were prominent. If you WOULD like to know anything about the history and planning apps. please feel free to look at the uploaded article and photos at www.savehove.wordpre ss.com[/p][/quote]actually if you knew any history about the cross it was on the other side of the property and later moved, it was in memory of the woman's brother,and not only is it recorded to have been moved from the now none existing wall when the original building was made, converted from a garden but any idiot could tell by looking at the brick work alone and the people causing trouble have no right to ownership in the least. This is just some crazy resident that has a wild hair up their **** about builders working.[/p][/quote]We know very well that it was Constance Ida Verner's brother. It is in the article on the saveHOVE website. There is no documentation currently available, unless you can provide chapter and verse, to say squat about the cross being "moved from the other side of the property". The studio building was built in part of the garden behind 2 Victoria Gardens, not all of it. The garden extended to the Esplanade. The studio ends behind 3 Medina Terrace and the garden ended behind 8 Medina Terrace. WHERE is it "recorded to have been moved from the now none existing wall when the original building was made..." Prove it. Or is this empty bluff. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 0

11:27pm Wed 21 Nov 12

trystero says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Gilmour and his stepson are examples of how priviledge breeds a belief that money and position can get you anything you want.
It's a pity that priviledge doesn't deliver a good education because both of them are pretty thick when it comes to fostering community relations.
Hey Gilmour, go back to London and take your canoes with you.
Alternatively:

"saveHOVE says...
5:36pm Tue 20 Nov 12

....I take it you are a crawling, toadying celeb-worshiper (sic.).

Wilford Cole Verner died in 1889. And the family were prominent."

Of course, proper old-fashioned "prominence" is SO much better than the modern "priviledge" (sic.) - based variety....
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Gilmour and his stepson are examples of how priviledge breeds a belief that money and position can get you anything you want. It's a pity that priviledge doesn't deliver a good education because both of them are pretty thick when it comes to fostering community relations. Hey Gilmour, go back to London and take your canoes with you.[/p][/quote]Alternatively: "saveHOVE says... 5:36pm Tue 20 Nov 12 ....I take it you are a crawling, toadying celeb-worshiper (sic.). Wilford Cole Verner died in 1889. And the family were prominent." Of course, proper old-fashioned "prominence" is SO much better than the modern "priviledge" (sic.) - based variety.... trystero
  • Score: 0

10:07am Thu 22 Nov 12

Joshiman says...

Having spoken to a number of actual local residents the feedback was "dont know anything about it,Its a private car park isnt it" The eyesore is a big improvement.Now go and find something else to complain about.Get Medina House sorted ir the KA.
Having spoken to a number of actual local residents the feedback was "dont know anything about it,Its a private car park isnt it" The eyesore is a big improvement.Now go and find something else to complain about.Get Medina House sorted ir the KA. Joshiman
  • Score: 0

10:08am Thu 22 Nov 12

StyleCop says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
StyleCop wrote:
saveHOVE wrote: For the benefit of those commenting some clarifications: 1. The Verner research has been ongoing over a more than three year period now and is being used now to highlight a problem. A number of Esplanade residents have been closely associated with the saveHOVE work since begun in 2005. We have worked together on a number of issues, both in the Esplanade area and elsewhere. Valerie Paynter is not some kind of Superwoman, acting alone. It's not a physical possibility! 2. Gilmour owns the ground area/building, NOT THE WALL! It is a party wall in which an object, historically linked to no. 2 Victoria Terrace, is embedded. Ownership of the wall and its embedded memorial cross/former or existing headstone are a legal issue. 2. Gilmour already has planning consent for the music studio (great, no problem) and for canoe storage along the wall, stopping short of the cross (foolish on security grounds, but no problem). He was specifically required by planning consent to leave the cross alone. 3. His people have badly damaged the surround of the cross and he has put in a fresh application to extend the canoe storage over the area where the cross is embedded in the wall and to move the cross elsewhere. He in fact wants to move it to the west wall of the studio where cars park and where they could drive straight into it. That wall was damaged in the past by exactly that. It is not a suitable relocation plan. There was no reason whatsoever to touch it. Certainly not without sorting out continuous party wall ownership with residents of Medina Terrace beforehand. The wall was probably first built with Medina Terrace. 4. There are ongoing issues with his neighbours over the way he is implementing his existing planning consent for the studio (roof height) and compliance (not) with enforcement requests concerning the bike storage 'beach hut', and now for what he wants to do along the wall.
Great clarification Valerie/SaveHOVE collective... and hats off for the work you do for the Community... (I'm not so sure about the Cage Shaking/Saber rattling mind you) :) It's quite clear then that this issue regarding the stone cross boils down to; 1. The party wall question (which can be dealt with and changed via legal avenues ) 2. The onorous momument's relocation plan - which is or is not suitable - and... as this article shows - highly subjective. I would agree the to move it to the western wall, (still within the confines of the private grounds and not on full public display), does strike me as odd... ...and the issues asides regarding planning - well. quite frankly, they are always going to polarise a neighbourhood due to Nimby-ism. I would have thought, the most appropriate course of action is to stop the heel-digging and mud-slinging and for the benefit of everyones sanity you'd be better placed putting your energies into joining forces with Gilmore crew and petitioning the Council to find a suitable, nearby location where such a monument can be enjoyed by all. If it is such an important piece of local heritage that is - which we've only got your word for... ...prior to this article I'd never even heard of the Verners, and I'm sure if you were to quiz random members of the public up and down our great land you'd probably find that the vast majority hadn't either - but may well have heard of Mr Gilmore or Ewbank - as they are, as much as you'll no doubt rail against, part of our current cultural heritage, and may well deserve as much recognition as the Verner family? Not that I'm vouching for common celebrity here - just pointing out - again - that times move on... by all means learn from the past but we still need to look to the future - and change, regardless of how you feel about it, is inevitable I'm afraid...
Are you suggesting that celebrity equals entitlement above the law? Even if planning law which is so maligned but which keeps things ordered and sane. Lack of knowledge of Hove history on anyone's part does not equate to insignificance. We are working on the lack of historic detail.....someone has to.
Valerie said;
"Are you suggesting that celebrity equals entitlement above the law? Even if planning law which is so maligned but which keeps things ordered and sane. Lack of knowledge of Hove history on anyone's part does not equate to insignificance. We are working on the lack of historic detail.....someone has to. "


Absolutely not Valerie. I'm not saying that at all...

I'm on your side but you're too close to the situation to be able to view it objectively.

There are a few points I'm making but let me make myself clear.

1. Your organisation is doing a good job upholding local history

2. History is being made all the time and the very people you are holding up as offenders to you cause are - in fact - future NATIONAL historical figures... (Pejorative use of the word 'celebrity' asides)... like it or lump it...

3. The only thing we can be sure of is that things change. The world moves on and as a historian you have to accept that and work with it to your advantage.

4. Planning consent is being used (mistakes and mis-understanding asides)

Ultimately, my point is this;

Rather than being antagonistic and anti-change and disapproving of individuals desire to shape their environment to their own needs (like The Verners did by establishing a Studio at the bottom of their Garden) - work with those individuals to find a mutual compromise.

Someone has to give, and by kicking up a stink in the manner that the you are (with respect) it isn't necessarily in your favour?

This whole thing could be turned around if if there wasn't the vitriole over "middle fingers to neighbours" and "being unneighbourly" etc...

By working with people rather than fighting them, one can achieve respect - and ultimately - results.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: For the benefit of those commenting some clarifications: 1. The Verner research has been ongoing over a more than three year period now and is being used now to highlight a problem. A number of Esplanade residents have been closely associated with the saveHOVE work since begun in 2005. We have worked together on a number of issues, both in the Esplanade area and elsewhere. Valerie Paynter is not some kind of Superwoman, acting alone. It's not a physical possibility! 2. Gilmour owns the ground area/building, NOT THE WALL! It is a party wall in which an object, historically linked to no. 2 Victoria Terrace, is embedded. Ownership of the wall and its embedded memorial cross/former or existing headstone are a legal issue. 2. Gilmour already has planning consent for the music studio (great, no problem) and for canoe storage along the wall, stopping short of the cross (foolish on security grounds, but no problem). He was specifically required by planning consent to leave the cross alone. 3. His people have badly damaged the surround of the cross and he has put in a fresh application to extend the canoe storage over the area where the cross is embedded in the wall and to move the cross elsewhere. He in fact wants to move it to the west wall of the studio where cars park and where they could drive straight into it. That wall was damaged in the past by exactly that. It is not a suitable relocation plan. There was no reason whatsoever to touch it. Certainly not without sorting out continuous party wall ownership with residents of Medina Terrace beforehand. The wall was probably first built with Medina Terrace. 4. There are ongoing issues with his neighbours over the way he is implementing his existing planning consent for the studio (roof height) and compliance (not) with enforcement requests concerning the bike storage 'beach hut', and now for what he wants to do along the wall.[/p][/quote]Great clarification Valerie/SaveHOVE collective... and hats off for the work you do for the Community... (I'm not so sure about the Cage Shaking/Saber rattling mind you) :) It's quite clear then that this issue regarding the stone cross boils down to; 1. The party wall question (which can be dealt with and changed via legal avenues [which you yourself point out]) 2. The onorous momument's relocation plan - which is or is not suitable - and... as this article shows - highly subjective. I would agree the to move it to the western wall, (still within the confines of the private grounds and not on full public display), does strike me as odd... ...and the issues asides regarding planning - well. quite frankly, they are always going to polarise a neighbourhood due to Nimby-ism. I would have thought, the most appropriate course of action is to stop the heel-digging and mud-slinging and for the benefit of everyones sanity you'd be better placed putting your energies into joining forces with Gilmore crew and petitioning the Council to find a suitable, nearby location where such a monument can be enjoyed by all. If it is such an important piece of local heritage that is - which we've only got your word for... ...prior to this article I'd never even heard of the Verners, and I'm sure if you were to quiz random members of the public up and down our great land you'd probably find that the vast majority hadn't either - but may well have heard of Mr Gilmore or Ewbank - as they are, as much as you'll no doubt rail against, part of our current cultural heritage, and may well deserve as much recognition as the Verner family? Not that I'm vouching for common celebrity here - just pointing out - again - that times move on... by all means learn from the past but we still need to look to the future - and change, regardless of how you feel about it, is inevitable I'm afraid...[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that celebrity equals entitlement above the law? Even if planning law which is so maligned but which keeps things ordered and sane. Lack of knowledge of Hove history on anyone's part does not equate to insignificance. We are working on the lack of historic detail.....someone has to.[/p][/quote]Valerie said; "Are you suggesting that celebrity equals entitlement above the law? Even if planning law which is so maligned but which keeps things ordered and sane. Lack of knowledge of Hove history on anyone's part does not equate to insignificance. We are working on the lack of historic detail.....someone has to. " Absolutely not Valerie. I'm not saying that at all... I'm on your side but you're too close to the situation to be able to view it objectively. There are a few points I'm making but let me make myself clear. 1. Your organisation is doing a good job upholding local history 2. History is being made all the time and the very people you are holding up as offenders to you cause are - in fact - future NATIONAL historical figures... (Pejorative use of the word 'celebrity' asides)... like it or lump it... 3. The only thing we can be sure of is that things change. The world moves on and as a historian you have to accept that and work with it to your advantage. 4. Planning consent is being used (mistakes and mis-understanding asides) Ultimately, my point is this; Rather than being antagonistic and anti-change and disapproving of individuals desire to shape their environment to their own needs (like The Verners did by establishing a Studio at the bottom of their Garden) - work with those individuals to find a mutual compromise. Someone has to give, and by kicking up a stink in the manner that the you are (with respect) it isn't necessarily in your favour? This whole thing could be turned around if if there wasn't the vitriole over "middle fingers to neighbours" and "being unneighbourly" etc... By working with people rather than fighting them, one can achieve respect - and ultimately - results. StyleCop
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Thu 22 Nov 12

birthofanorange says...

Chill out, Val. Spark up a doobie, sit in the sunshine and let the sounds of some early Floyd wash over you. You'll feel all the better for it, I promise you.
Chill out, Val. Spark up a doobie, sit in the sunshine and let the sounds of some early Floyd wash over you. You'll feel all the better for it, I promise you. birthofanorange
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Thu 22 Nov 12

saveHOVE says...

Mr. Gilmour's extraordinary body of work as a musician is not at issue (so not a valid excuse for his 'momentary lapse of reason').

Mr. Gilmour's welcomed work on his house is not at issue (we have been quietly admiring and grateful for a few years now and respecting his privacy by staying quiet. Fame is a curse and everyone needs privacy).

He put up the beach hut in the listed curtilege behind the house without planning consent and to the annoyance of neighbours but this was quietly dealt with through Enforcement and Planning. He did not give a monkeys about how the height of it above the garden wall would look or be received by neighbours the other side of it.

Perhaps assumed his fame would keep everyone sweet.

Gilmour bought and got planning consent for conversion of the sad and mistreated studio three doors down from the back wall of his house along with creation of boat storage along the wall. Again, this was something to be pleased about. Implementation, however, was not as per consent. The roof is higher and above the garden wall. And not something the affected neighbours are prepared to accept.

Now jackhammering out of the top above the cross he does not even own and taking chunks out of the side of it, all in direct and deliberate defiance of a condition of consent to LEAVE THE CROSS ALONE.

At this point things changed. A line had to be drawn and he had to be stopped. The council were contacted and as he was forced to put in an application to justify his 'crime' he decided, I guess to make a few other changes.

He rang one of the neighbours the other day....no apology, just justifying his bad behaviour. And some of those commenting here are no better.

His musical legacy is not in competition with Hove heritage. There is no connection. Get real! If he wasn't a rock God you would not defend it. If it was your non-famous neighbour you'd do the same as we have. The fawning sycophancy here is saddening.

I hope he didn't think he could trade on his fame here as some of you think he is entitled to do!
Mr. Gilmour's extraordinary body of work as a musician is not at issue (so not a valid excuse for his 'momentary lapse of reason'). Mr. Gilmour's welcomed work on his house is not at issue (we have been quietly admiring and grateful for a few years now and respecting his privacy by staying quiet. Fame is a curse and everyone needs privacy). He put up the beach hut in the listed curtilege behind the house without planning consent and to the annoyance of neighbours but this was quietly dealt with through Enforcement and Planning. He did not give a monkeys about how the height of it above the garden wall would look or be received by neighbours the other side of it. Perhaps assumed his fame would keep everyone sweet. Gilmour bought and got planning consent for conversion of the sad and mistreated studio three doors down from the back wall of his house along with creation of boat storage along the wall. Again, this was something to be pleased about. Implementation, however, was not as per consent. The roof is higher and above the garden wall. And not something the affected neighbours are prepared to accept. Now jackhammering out of the top above the cross he does not even own and taking chunks out of the side of it, all in direct and deliberate defiance of a condition of consent to LEAVE THE CROSS ALONE. At this point things changed. A line had to be drawn and he had to be stopped. The council were contacted and as he was forced to put in an application to justify his 'crime' he decided, I guess to make a few other changes. He rang one of the neighbours the other day....no apology, just justifying his bad behaviour. And some of those commenting here are no better. His musical legacy is not in competition with Hove heritage. There is no connection. Get real! If he wasn't a rock God you would not defend it. If it was your non-famous neighbour you'd do the same as we have. The fawning sycophancy here is saddening. I hope he didn't think he could trade on his fame here as some of you think he is entitled to do! saveHOVE
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Fri 23 Nov 12

DrJetty says...

I remember when a Quaker grave yard was dug up and relocated more than a mile away, the area was paved over for an access road. What's the problem with refurbishing the cross and installing it a few metres away from its original site. To me it sounds like some people have envy at someones life and lifestyle, they're using the cross as a weapon against Mr Gilmore.

The Quaker graveyard was located in Rifle Butt Road, the access road to Brighton Marina takes you right over it.
I remember when a Quaker grave yard was dug up and relocated more than a mile away, the area was paved over for an access road. What's the problem with refurbishing the cross and installing it a few metres away from its original site. To me it sounds like some people have envy at someones life and lifestyle, they're using the cross as a weapon against Mr Gilmore. The Quaker graveyard was located in Rifle Butt Road, the access road to Brighton Marina takes you right over it. DrJetty
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Fri 23 Nov 12

elephantsandowls says...

@ Dr Jetty
I believe most people have issues with the way it's done.

There was a specific request no to move the cross, it was then damaged perhaps for the purpose of getting it moved.

I love this man's music, but money and notoriety should not mean a carte blanche to do whatever you want with a property.
@ Dr Jetty I believe most people have issues with the way it's done. There was a specific request no to move the cross, it was then damaged perhaps for the purpose of getting it moved. I love this man's music, but money and notoriety should not mean a carte blanche to do whatever you want with a property. elephantsandowls
  • Score: 0

6:22pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Myrtille says...

pinky1 wrote:
I think that as a lot of people have pointed out we did't even know that the cross was there..? so if it not going to be seen by lots of people than what's the point..! if so many people are that bothered about it why don't they club together and buy it off David and sight it on the seafront so that we can all see it...! I think that the people of Hove and Brighton should leave him alone after all in did deicide to make Hove is home the man is a living legend and should have the right to spend his hard earned money how and when he likes...!!! so if you people what it to stay then put up or shut up......!!
David hard earned money??? You make me giggle!! Don't insult the ones who did work hard all their lives earning nothing!!! Everytime one of his songs goes on a radio, he receives money, while relaxing on his yacht bought in France, or maybe in his nice house in Greece, or wherever in the world... Okay? Thank you!!!
[quote][p][bold]pinky1[/bold] wrote: I think that as a lot of people have pointed out we did't even know that the cross was there..? so if it not going to be seen by lots of people than what's the point..! if so many people are that bothered about it why don't they club together and buy it off David and sight it on the seafront so that we can all see it...! I think that the people of Hove and Brighton should leave him alone after all in did deicide to make Hove is home the man is a living legend and should have the right to spend his hard earned money how and when he likes...!!! so if you people what it to stay then put up or shut up......!![/p][/quote]David hard earned money??? You make me giggle!! Don't insult the ones who did work hard all their lives earning nothing!!! Everytime one of his songs goes on a radio, he receives money, while relaxing on his yacht bought in France, or maybe in his nice house in Greece, or wherever in the world... Okay? Thank you!!! Myrtille
  • Score: 0

9:54pm Sat 24 Nov 12

pinky1 says...

To Myrtille
I take it from your response to my posting that you don't have a radio or a TV or watch films ect or read books because if you don't think that any body who earn there money from these type of work is not entitled to spend the money that they get, on what ever they want then it would be a boring life.

He has made million's of people all over the world very happy and has taken them out of them self for a few brief hours would you take that away from us just because you don't like the amount of money that he earn's. yes I have spent money on the pink Floyd I have been to concerts and have all his and there albums and I don't regret spending any of the money that I have on it because I have lots of happy memories and have made lots of friends over the years...!!!
there are many type of work just because he did not dig holes or work in a factory or sweep roads, this should not take away his right's to spend his money the way he wants too..!

If I came to you and said that you could not go on holiday or buy a new car or what ever because I did not like the job that you were in you would get upset..well you are saying the same thing just because you don't like music or what ever it sounds to me that there is a touch of the green eyed monster in you...! it would be a very sad world if you were in charge...! I give my whole hearted support to Mr Gilmore
leave him alone we in this country have more to be concern with than a wall..!!!

PINKY
To Myrtille I take it from your response to my posting that you don't have a radio or a TV or watch films ect or read books because if you don't think that any body who earn there money from these type of work is not entitled to spend the money that they get, on what ever they want then it would be a boring life. He has made million's of people all over the world very happy and has taken them out of them self for a few brief hours would you take that away from us just because you don't like the amount of money that he earn's. yes I have spent money on the pink Floyd I have been to concerts and have all his and there albums and I don't regret spending any of the money that I have on it because I have lots of happy memories and have made lots of friends over the years...!!! there are many type of work just because he did not dig holes or work in a factory or sweep roads, this should not take away his right's to spend his money the way he wants too..! If I came to you and said that you could not go on holiday or buy a new car or what ever because I did not like the job that you were in you would get upset..well you are saying the same thing just because you don't like music or what ever it sounds to me that there is a touch of the green eyed monster in you...! it would be a very sad world if you were in charge...! I give my whole hearted support to Mr Gilmore leave him alone we in this country have more to be concern with than a wall..!!! PINKY pinky1
  • Score: 0

11:19am Mon 26 Nov 12

saveHOVE says...

Pinky, there are a lot of things in this world you have no access to. Does that negate their value?

Please understand that Gilmour's house is 3 doors away from the cross, embedded in the party wall behind the terrace, and he does not own either the wall or the cross.

Neither he nor anyone else is entitled to destroy whatever gets in their way on the grounds that they are rich, famous and have made a fabulous contribution to the culture of the country.

With friends like you, he needs no enemies, that's for sure.
Pinky, there are a lot of things in this world you have no access to. Does that negate their value? Please understand that Gilmour's house is 3 doors away from the cross, embedded in the party wall behind the terrace, and he does not own either the wall or the cross. Neither he nor anyone else is entitled to destroy whatever gets in their way on the grounds that they are rich, famous and have made a fabulous contribution to the culture of the country. With friends like you, he needs no enemies, that's for sure. saveHOVE
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree