The ArgusLatest Medina House demolition plans rejected (From The Argus)

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

Latest Medina House demolition plans rejected

The Argus: Medina House Medina House

A developer has suffered another setback in his bid to knock down a historic Turkish bath house to make way for a block of flats.

Plans to demolish the Victorian Medina House and replace it with an eight-storey residential tower have been turned down by Brighton and Hove City Council planning officers.

The proposed block of flats for the site in Kings Esplanade in Hove was described as “excessively out of scale” and “visually overbearing”.

Opponents to the designs are now calling on the council to carry out a compulsory purchase order to preserve the site, although doubts have been raised over whether the finances exist for such a move.

The site has remained empty for the past 15 years despite land owner Sirus Taghan commissioning architects to draw up a series of new building designs for the site, all of which have been rejected.

The latest proposals, submitted in October, attracted fewer than five objections and so the decision was reached not by a planning committee of elected councillors but by one council official.

To try to break the impasse over the site, Brighton and Hove City Council drew up a development brief last year following consultation with the public, outlining what it would like to see happen to the site. The brief recommended that the original bath house building, which opened in 1894, would be retained, although Mr Taghan claimed it would not be viable or affordable.

In the reasoning for the application’s rejection, the planning officer stated that Mr Taghan had failed to demonstrate that the building was beyond economic repair and that there are no viable alternative uses for the building.

Valerie Paynter, of conservation group Save Hove, said compulsory purchase had to be “the next move”.

She said: “It’s something I felt was important more than 18 months ago when we were petitioning for a Medina House planning brief.

“Enough is enough. It’s the only way forward.

“There are people in the wings who are willing to buy it but he rebuffs them. What’s not possible is building something that’s higher than there is now.”

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:11am Wed 8 Jan 14

kevin meredith says...

It has not been empty for 15 years because in 2003 there where people squatting it.
It has not been empty for 15 years because in 2003 there where people squatting it. kevin meredith
  • Score: -3

11:32am Wed 8 Jan 14

Scorpio50 says...

Shame on Sirus Taghan for allowing this building to fall in to its current state. I walked pass the Medina Bath House on Christmas day and, where the wind had blown the fence down you could see into the back yard. On the wall where some really lovely tiles.
What a pity Mr Taghan wants to erase this in order to slap up an ugly, moden building.
The Council should buy and preserve this building.
Shame on Sirus Taghan for allowing this building to fall in to its current state. I walked pass the Medina Bath House on Christmas day and, where the wind had blown the fence down you could see into the back yard. On the wall where some really lovely tiles. What a pity Mr Taghan wants to erase this in order to slap up an ugly, moden building. The Council should buy and preserve this building. Scorpio50
  • Score: 10

11:49am Wed 8 Jan 14

tykemison says...

I think it's time for Mr Taghan to accept he is unable to rip down this beautiful building and to sell or have it taken off him.I walk past this lovely structure frequently and feel distraught that any sane human would want to rip it down to replace it with more ghastly, cheap flats, unless for greed of course, which sadly is commonplace.
I think it's time for Mr Taghan to accept he is unable to rip down this beautiful building and to sell or have it taken off him.I walk past this lovely structure frequently and feel distraught that any sane human would want to rip it down to replace it with more ghastly, cheap flats, unless for greed of course, which sadly is commonplace. tykemison
  • Score: 10

12:58pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Quiterie says...

Scorpio50 wrote:
Shame on Sirus Taghan for allowing this building to fall in to its current state. I walked pass the Medina Bath House on Christmas day and, where the wind had blown the fence down you could see into the back yard. On the wall where some really lovely tiles.
What a pity Mr Taghan wants to erase this in order to slap up an ugly, moden building.
The Council should buy and preserve this building.
And just out of interest where do you think the money should come from for the Council to buy and preserve this building?
[quote][p][bold]Scorpio50[/bold] wrote: Shame on Sirus Taghan for allowing this building to fall in to its current state. I walked pass the Medina Bath House on Christmas day and, where the wind had blown the fence down you could see into the back yard. On the wall where some really lovely tiles. What a pity Mr Taghan wants to erase this in order to slap up an ugly, moden building. The Council should buy and preserve this building.[/p][/quote]And just out of interest where do you think the money should come from for the Council to buy and preserve this building? Quiterie
  • Score: 10

12:59pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Hove Actually says...

What they need is a polish crew to start some repairs so it falls down, owner of the Sackville Hotel may have a number for you, or a good fire is another way to force the planners hand.

Seems strange about the height reasons when the council where hell bend on the tin can towers only yards away.
What they need is a polish crew to start some repairs so it falls down, owner of the Sackville Hotel may have a number for you, or a good fire is another way to force the planners hand. Seems strange about the height reasons when the council where hell bend on the tin can towers only yards away. Hove Actually
  • Score: 4

1:03pm Wed 8 Jan 14

gheese77 says...

The planning process is managing to protect this once fine building from being demolished to make way for an ugly block of flats, the only motivation for which is profit.
This building is part of our history, it should not be demolished
The planning process is managing to protect this once fine building from being demolished to make way for an ugly block of flats, the only motivation for which is profit. This building is part of our history, it should not be demolished gheese77
  • Score: 9

1:06pm Wed 8 Jan 14

gheese77 says...

Hove Actually wrote:
What they need is a polish crew to start some repairs so it falls down, owner of the Sackville Hotel may have a number for you, or a good fire is another way to force the planners hand.

Seems strange about the height reasons when the council where hell bend on the tin can towers only yards away.
Because the tin can towers were not on the site of a historic building
[quote][p][bold]Hove Actually[/bold] wrote: What they need is a polish crew to start some repairs so it falls down, owner of the Sackville Hotel may have a number for you, or a good fire is another way to force the planners hand. Seems strange about the height reasons when the council where hell bend on the tin can towers only yards away.[/p][/quote]Because the tin can towers were not on the site of a historic building gheese77
  • Score: -3

1:48pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Scorpio50 says...

Quiterie wrote:
Scorpio50 wrote:
Shame on Sirus Taghan for allowing this building to fall in to its current state. I walked pass the Medina Bath House on Christmas day and, where the wind had blown the fence down you could see into the back yard. On the wall where some really lovely tiles.
What a pity Mr Taghan wants to erase this in order to slap up an ugly, moden building.
The Council should buy and preserve this building.
And just out of interest where do you think the money should come from for the Council to buy and preserve this building?
Well, considering the Council has a habit of wasting money hand over fist why not use some of it trying to conserve this once lovely building.
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scorpio50[/bold] wrote: Shame on Sirus Taghan for allowing this building to fall in to its current state. I walked pass the Medina Bath House on Christmas day and, where the wind had blown the fence down you could see into the back yard. On the wall where some really lovely tiles. What a pity Mr Taghan wants to erase this in order to slap up an ugly, moden building. The Council should buy and preserve this building.[/p][/quote]And just out of interest where do you think the money should come from for the Council to buy and preserve this building?[/p][/quote]Well, considering the Council has a habit of wasting money hand over fist why not use some of it trying to conserve this once lovely building. Scorpio50
  • Score: 5

2:20pm Wed 8 Jan 14

ruthrose says...

Correction - there were a lot more than 5 objections but as the Planning Officer was of the same mind, it was within the Council's powers to make this a delegated decision.
Correction - there were a lot more than 5 objections but as the Planning Officer was of the same mind, it was within the Council's powers to make this a delegated decision. ruthrose
  • Score: 8

2:40pm Wed 8 Jan 14

pwlr1966 says...

we need more housing, demolish this monstrosity, an empty building is of no use to anyone
we need more housing, demolish this monstrosity, an empty building is of no use to anyone pwlr1966
  • Score: -7

3:00pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

the greens will only demolish it anyway to make way for affordable housing, heritage and history mean nothing to them, i would be careful what you wish for folks.
the greens will only demolish it anyway to make way for affordable housing, heritage and history mean nothing to them, i would be careful what you wish for folks. Brighton1000
  • Score: 11

3:03pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Quiterie says...

Scorpio50 wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
Scorpio50 wrote:
Shame on Sirus Taghan for allowing this building to fall in to its current state. I walked pass the Medina Bath House on Christmas day and, where the wind had blown the fence down you could see into the back yard. On the wall where some really lovely tiles.
What a pity Mr Taghan wants to erase this in order to slap up an ugly, moden building.
The Council should buy and preserve this building.
And just out of interest where do you think the money should come from for the Council to buy and preserve this building?
Well, considering the Council has a habit of wasting money hand over fist why not use some of it trying to conserve this once lovely building.
Far too vague. I can see the point you're making. But the money still has to come from somewhere to spend on a building like this. Not convinced it's the best use of public funds....
[quote][p][bold]Scorpio50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scorpio50[/bold] wrote: Shame on Sirus Taghan for allowing this building to fall in to its current state. I walked pass the Medina Bath House on Christmas day and, where the wind had blown the fence down you could see into the back yard. On the wall where some really lovely tiles. What a pity Mr Taghan wants to erase this in order to slap up an ugly, moden building. The Council should buy and preserve this building.[/p][/quote]And just out of interest where do you think the money should come from for the Council to buy and preserve this building?[/p][/quote]Well, considering the Council has a habit of wasting money hand over fist why not use some of it trying to conserve this once lovely building.[/p][/quote]Far too vague. I can see the point you're making. But the money still has to come from somewhere to spend on a building like this. Not convinced it's the best use of public funds.... Quiterie
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Wed 8 Jan 14

ruthrose says...

ruthrose wrote:
Correction - there were a lot more than 5 objections but as the Planning Officer was of the same mind, it was within the Council's powers to make this a delegated decision.
To clarify - this means that actually there were less than 5 people in support.
[quote][p][bold]ruthrose[/bold] wrote: Correction - there were a lot more than 5 objections but as the Planning Officer was of the same mind, it was within the Council's powers to make this a delegated decision.[/p][/quote]To clarify - this means that actually there were less than 5 people in support. ruthrose
  • Score: 6

4:20pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Scorpio50 says...

pwlr1966 wrote:
we need more housing, demolish this monstrosity, an empty building is of no use to anyone
Really, who do you think could afford to live in a property right on the seafront? Usually 'Buy to Let' folk and Londoner's with cash to splash. Sorry, but as some one born and raised in Brighton & Hove it will be out of my league!
[quote][p][bold]pwlr1966[/bold] wrote: we need more housing, demolish this monstrosity, an empty building is of no use to anyone[/p][/quote]Really, who do you think could afford to live in a property right on the seafront? Usually 'Buy to Let' folk and Londoner's with cash to splash. Sorry, but as some one born and raised in Brighton & Hove it will be out of my league! Scorpio50
  • Score: 5

6:41pm Wed 8 Jan 14

hoveguyactually says...

gheese77 wrote:
Hove Actually wrote:
What they need is a polish crew to start some repairs so it falls down, owner of the Sackville Hotel may have a number for you, or a good fire is another way to force the planners hand.

Seems strange about the height reasons when the council where hell bend on the tin can towers only yards away.
Because the tin can towers were not on the site of a historic building
If I remember correctly it was the previous council, a Labour one, that was hell bent on having the tin can towers erected. Not that I would put anything past the present bunch of clowns when it comes to crass decision making. Thank goodness that failed through lack of funds. Why should the seafront be given over only to wealthy developers producing expensive blocks of flats? Isn't it time some consideration was made for the general public and especially the ratepayers, who pay heavily for the upkeep of the promenade? A preservation order should have been placed on the building long ago and Taghan should have been forced to pay for its repair, or heavily fined for its neglect. It is not a great work of architecture but it is unique and of a historical nature. The same attitude exists with so many of Brighton and Hove's landmarks - the West Pier, the Hippodrome, the Astoria. Let it rot, so that it will be beyond repair if you wait long enough.
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hove Actually[/bold] wrote: What they need is a polish crew to start some repairs so it falls down, owner of the Sackville Hotel may have a number for you, or a good fire is another way to force the planners hand. Seems strange about the height reasons when the council where hell bend on the tin can towers only yards away.[/p][/quote]Because the tin can towers were not on the site of a historic building[/p][/quote]If I remember correctly it was the previous council, a Labour one, that was hell bent on having the tin can towers erected. Not that I would put anything past the present bunch of clowns when it comes to crass decision making. Thank goodness that failed through lack of funds. Why should the seafront be given over only to wealthy developers producing expensive blocks of flats? Isn't it time some consideration was made for the general public and especially the ratepayers, who pay heavily for the upkeep of the promenade? A preservation order should have been placed on the building long ago and Taghan should have been forced to pay for its repair, or heavily fined for its neglect. It is not a great work of architecture but it is unique and of a historical nature. The same attitude exists with so many of Brighton and Hove's landmarks - the West Pier, the Hippodrome, the Astoria. Let it rot, so that it will be beyond repair if you wait long enough. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 2

6:19am Thu 9 Jan 14

mimseycal says...

I really wonder what is going on in the minds of people like Sirus Taghan. Even if Mammon is his deity of choice surely after all these years and all these applications he must be falling short in his devotional sacrifices?

I fear that he has the bit well and truly in his teeth by now and it has become a do or die. He will either get permission to pull this down or an act of Mammon will bring it down ... by flame, by rumble or by time alone.
I really wonder what is going on in the minds of people like Sirus Taghan. Even if Mammon is his deity of choice surely after all these years and all these applications he must be falling short in his devotional sacrifices? I fear that he has the bit well and truly in his teeth by now and it has become a do or die. He will either get permission to pull this down or an act of Mammon will bring it down ... by flame, by rumble or by time alone. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Thu 9 Jan 14

pwlr1966 says...

Scorpio50 wrote:
pwlr1966 wrote: we need more housing, demolish this monstrosity, an empty building is of no use to anyone
Really, who do you think could afford to live in a property right on the seafront? Usually 'Buy to Let' folk and Londoner's with cash to splash. Sorry, but as some one born and raised in Brighton & Hove it will be out of my league!
You are so selfish, just because you could not afford to live there then no-one should.
[quote][p][bold]Scorpio50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlr1966[/bold] wrote: we need more housing, demolish this monstrosity, an empty building is of no use to anyone[/p][/quote]Really, who do you think could afford to live in a property right on the seafront? Usually 'Buy to Let' folk and Londoner's with cash to splash. Sorry, but as some one born and raised in Brighton & Hove it will be out of my league![/p][/quote]You are so selfish, just because you could not afford to live there then no-one should. pwlr1966
  • Score: 2

1:40pm Thu 9 Jan 14

mimseycal says...

pwlr1966 wrote:
Scorpio50 wrote:
pwlr1966 wrote: we need more housing, demolish this monstrosity, an empty building is of no use to anyone
Really, who do you think could afford to live in a property right on the seafront? Usually 'Buy to Let' folk and Londoner's with cash to splash. Sorry, but as some one born and raised in Brighton & Hove it will be out of my league!
You are so selfish, just because you could not afford to live there then no-one should.
I think the point that Scorpio50 is trying to make is that builing a high rise there would not benefit local residents so therefore losing a historic building that is part of the local heritage would be a loss/loss situation as far as local residents are concerned.
[quote][p][bold]pwlr1966[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scorpio50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pwlr1966[/bold] wrote: we need more housing, demolish this monstrosity, an empty building is of no use to anyone[/p][/quote]Really, who do you think could afford to live in a property right on the seafront? Usually 'Buy to Let' folk and Londoner's with cash to splash. Sorry, but as some one born and raised in Brighton & Hove it will be out of my league![/p][/quote]You are so selfish, just because you could not afford to live there then no-one should.[/p][/quote]I think the point that Scorpio50 is trying to make is that builing a high rise there would not benefit local residents so therefore losing a historic building that is part of the local heritage would be a loss/loss situation as far as local residents are concerned. mimseycal
  • Score: 1

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