Anger over plans to turn old Portslade police station into houses

Anger over plans to turn old police station into houses (Pic: Google streetview)

Anger over plans to turn old police station into houses (Pic: Google streetview)

First published in News by , local government reporter

Furious residents are “outraged and heartbroken” after failing to stop plans to redevelop an old police station.

The old station in St Andrew's Road in Portslade has been earmarked by Brighton and Hove City Council to be developed into social housing with planning permission and funding already in place.

Residents and ward councillors had been hoping to persuade the council to halt the redevelopment plans and allow the community to come up with funding for the building to be used as a heritage site, or possibly a museum.


MORE:


A petition in support of the campaign gained 172 signatures and at a meeting on Thursday Amanda Scales, who has led the efforts to save the old building, presented her case directly to Green council leader Jason Kitcat.

But she was left fuming after the council leader, who chairs the policy and resource committee, took less than three minutes to dismiss her argument and confirm the building had been identified for development.

Speaking to The Argus after the meeting, she said: “Everybody around there is really passionate and is pulling together and striving to make Portslade a nice place to live and to be dismissed like that, I'm outraged and heartbroken. “All I was asking for was a consultation and to be given consideration that we could find funding.

“We've been denied an opportunity to have a say over what goes on in our community.

“I'm almost speechless how they could just dismiss it.

“People are very upset about this.

“He has denied us, and lots of other Portslade residents the chance to have something wonderful in their community. I'm heartbroken for the building. I'd rather they left it alone than redevelop it.”

The former police station, which was built in the early 20th century and is owned by the city council, has not been used as a station since the 1950s.

After concerns were raised about the redevelopment council officers were asked to look at how viable the building would be as a museum.

The report concluded that while it was in a poor state, many items of historic interest remained intact.

It made particular reference to the police cells, which have remained untouched and in good condition.

Alan Robins, Labour councillor for South Portslade, said the decision highlighted the council's bias to city centre projects and accused the council leader of ignoring the views of residents.

He said: “You feel that what they're saying is that Portslade is a place where people can go to sleep but if they want culture then they need to go to Brighton city centre. We can blow £36 million to stick a tower up because it's in Brighton.”

Comments (65)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:21am Sun 23 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

That Jason does not really listen to residents became very evident to me when he announced during the budget meeting that all residents were in favour of the 4.75% council tax hike.

It is time someone reminded him that those two little appendages on the side of his head are not there for purely ornamental purposes.
That Jason does not really listen to residents became very evident to me when he announced during the budget meeting that all residents were in favour of the 4.75% council tax hike. It is time someone reminded him that those two little appendages on the side of his head are not there for purely ornamental purposes. mimseycal
  • Score: 55

9:58am Sun 23 Mar 14

ricky24680 says...

there are plans for a peaceful and silent protest outside the old police station on wednesday 26th march at 4pm in St Andrews Rd, Portslade... come and show your support and send a message to the council... next year is an election year and remember "they work for us"
there are plans for a peaceful and silent protest outside the old police station on wednesday 26th march at 4pm in St Andrews Rd, Portslade... come and show your support and send a message to the council... next year is an election year and remember "they work for us" ricky24680
  • Score: 39

11:00am Sun 23 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

mimseycal wrote:
That Jason does not really listen to residents became very evident to me when he announced during the budget meeting that all residents were in favour of the 4.75% council tax hike.

It is time someone reminded him that those two little appendages on the side of his head are not there for purely ornamental purposes.
If the 4.75% rise went for social care especially to keep our elderly at home I would gladly pay it,but unfortunately the greens would just waste the money like filling in several bowling greens and in some cases like preston park planting wild flowers on them,opposite me on hove seafront they filled a green in only underused as the council did not open the hire bowls facility just like it did not open the mini golf course onhove seafront.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: That Jason does not really listen to residents became very evident to me when he announced during the budget meeting that all residents were in favour of the 4.75% council tax hike. It is time someone reminded him that those two little appendages on the side of his head are not there for purely ornamental purposes.[/p][/quote]If the 4.75% rise went for social care especially to keep our elderly at home I would gladly pay it,but unfortunately the greens would just waste the money like filling in several bowling greens and in some cases like preston park planting wild flowers on them,opposite me on hove seafront they filled a green in only underused as the council did not open the hire bowls facility just like it did not open the mini golf course onhove seafront. clubrob6
  • Score: 13

11:05am Sun 23 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Only 172 people signed is not very good,a museum would not work in the area.As long as the building is saved and turned into family accommodation and not more studio flats I would be happy.But certainly not anymore supermarkets as most sites seen to be ending up as them especially local pubs.
Only 172 people signed is not very good,a museum would not work in the area.As long as the building is saved and turned into family accommodation and not more studio flats I would be happy.But certainly not anymore supermarkets as most sites seen to be ending up as them especially local pubs. clubrob6
  • Score: 10

11:12am Sun 23 Mar 14

Nick Packham says...

I've only just found out about the petition and am disgusted with Jason Kitcat for not even listening to the residents. I'm lucky enough to have been inside the former station and have relatives who served here when it was a working station.

I wish I was available to come and join your protest on 26th March but unfortunately I have to work on that day. If there is anything I can do to support the campaign please let me know. I have photos from the inside which you are welcome to use too.
I've only just found out about the petition and am disgusted with Jason Kitcat for not even listening to the residents. I'm lucky enough to have been inside the former station and have relatives who served here when it was a working station. I wish I was available to come and join your protest on 26th March but unfortunately I have to work on that day. If there is anything I can do to support the campaign please let me know. I have photos from the inside which you are welcome to use too. Nick Packham
  • Score: 18

11:23am Sun 23 Mar 14

Herbertfarquarson says...

For Christ sake 172 people is barely one street. How exciting it would have been though to visit Portslade museum and its wonderful artefacts. The staff there would have been so busy chatting to the hordes of visitors and collecting the income. Perhaps it could have propelled Portslade to the international acclaim and status as a cultural centre and tourist destination it so richly deserves. Shame on you Jason!
For Christ sake 172 people is barely one street. How exciting it would have been though to visit Portslade museum and its wonderful artefacts. The staff there would have been so busy chatting to the hordes of visitors and collecting the income. Perhaps it could have propelled Portslade to the international acclaim and status as a cultural centre and tourist destination it so richly deserves. Shame on you Jason! Herbertfarquarson
  • Score: 14

11:32am Sun 23 Mar 14

bikerjimbo says...

The thing that grieves me the most about this is the attitude of Jason Kitcat who, on the facts provided, gave no consideration to the local people. Mention is made in the past about his dictatorship approach which seems very evident here. We know he does not accept the views of others due to his stance over the no confidence vote, council tax hike etc and this has to be taken very seriously by the electorate next year. I do not have a view on the use of this building but I do not live in Portslade and surely it is for the local people to have a fair say in how there community is run.
The thing that grieves me the most about this is the attitude of Jason Kitcat who, on the facts provided, gave no consideration to the local people. Mention is made in the past about his dictatorship approach which seems very evident here. We know he does not accept the views of others due to his stance over the no confidence vote, council tax hike etc and this has to be taken very seriously by the electorate next year. I do not have a view on the use of this building but I do not live in Portslade and surely it is for the local people to have a fair say in how there community is run. bikerjimbo
  • Score: 17

11:53am Sun 23 Mar 14

pachallis says...

Kitkat doesn't worry at all about Portslade - the greens have no councillors outside the central Brighton & Hove area and just ignores us in Portslade - remember we were the failed experiment for 20 mph zones.!

I've lived in Portsalde for nearly 30 years and never realised we had a police station, I drove past today and didn't recognise the building versus the picture above which must have been taken many many years ago. The actual building is a tip and something needs to be done with it.

I'm just not sure the location would be any good for a heritage site (whatever that is?) or a museum or indeed whether there would be enough of interest to see there - especially after what has happened to Foredown Tower?

I hate to say it, but perhaps charisma challenged lunatic Kitkat is right this time?
Kitkat doesn't worry at all about Portslade - the greens have no councillors outside the central Brighton & Hove area and just ignores us in Portslade - remember we were the failed experiment for 20 mph zones.! I've lived in Portsalde for nearly 30 years and never realised we had a police station, I drove past today and didn't recognise the building versus the picture above which must have been taken many many years ago. The actual building is a tip and something needs to be done with it. I'm just not sure the location would be any good for a heritage site (whatever that is?) or a museum or indeed whether there would be enough of interest to see there - especially after what has happened to Foredown Tower? I hate to say it, but perhaps charisma challenged lunatic Kitkat is right this time? pachallis
  • Score: 7

11:56am Sun 23 Mar 14

Spooky Sue says...

Hi, perhaps I can shed some light on this. I come from goring by sea and there is a disused office block a few hundred yards from my house, for a few years now they have been going to pull it down and redevelop with some giant tower of flats, retail etc, however recently a planning notice appeared outside the building but none of us neighbours received any correspondence which we usually do. I proceeded to contact worthing council planning department and spoke to the head guy and he told me that due to a recent change by the government commercial buildings could be turned into housing with very little consultation and even neighbours do not need to be informed, from this I learnt said building by my house is now not going to be demolished but prettied up into 44 flats and the man said it would probably go straight through within a couple of weeks, so perhaps you could find out if this new government rule is behind your old police station being turned into housing.
Hi, perhaps I can shed some light on this. I come from goring by sea and there is a disused office block a few hundred yards from my house, for a few years now they have been going to pull it down and redevelop with some giant tower of flats, retail etc, however recently a planning notice appeared outside the building but none of us neighbours received any correspondence which we usually do. I proceeded to contact worthing council planning department and spoke to the head guy and he told me that due to a recent change by the government commercial buildings could be turned into housing with very little consultation and even neighbours do not need to be informed, from this I learnt said building by my house is now not going to be demolished but prettied up into 44 flats and the man said it would probably go straight through within a couple of weeks, so perhaps you could find out if this new government rule is behind your old police station being turned into housing. Spooky Sue
  • Score: 8

12:08pm Sun 23 Mar 14

brightonaire says...

I'm surprised the council didn't stage a local discussion with their inept and unprofessional MP present... then hold a public consultation with proposed plans and hundreds of locals turning up to make their objections known... then submit a planning application to the SDNP authority at great expense to the council, also inviting comments with petitions and comments objecting from thousands of Brighton and Hove residents submitted... then get the application approved at the stroke of a pen... as they did with the recent proposed extension to the travellers site at Horsdean
I'm surprised the council didn't stage a local discussion with their inept and unprofessional MP present... then hold a public consultation with proposed plans and hundreds of locals turning up to make their objections known... then submit a planning application to the SDNP authority at great expense to the council, also inviting comments with petitions and comments objecting from thousands of Brighton and Hove residents submitted... then get the application approved at the stroke of a pen... as they did with the recent proposed extension to the travellers site at Horsdean brightonaire
  • Score: 4

12:28pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Gribbet says...

Herbertfarquarson wrote:
For Christ sake 172 people is barely one street. How exciting it would have been though to visit Portslade museum and its wonderful artefacts. The staff there would have been so busy chatting to the hordes of visitors and collecting the income. Perhaps it could have propelled Portslade to the international acclaim and status as a cultural centre and tourist destination it so richly deserves. Shame on you Jason!
"The Portslade Police Museum". Oh boy.
[quote][p][bold]Herbertfarquarson[/bold] wrote: For Christ sake 172 people is barely one street. How exciting it would have been though to visit Portslade museum and its wonderful artefacts. The staff there would have been so busy chatting to the hordes of visitors and collecting the income. Perhaps it could have propelled Portslade to the international acclaim and status as a cultural centre and tourist destination it so richly deserves. Shame on you Jason![/p][/quote]"The Portslade Police Museum". Oh boy. Gribbet
  • Score: 5

12:35pm Sun 23 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

clubrob6 wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
That Jason does not really listen to residents became very evident to me when he announced during the budget meeting that all residents were in favour of the 4.75% council tax hike.

It is time someone reminded him that those two little appendages on the side of his head are not there for purely ornamental purposes.
If the 4.75% rise went for social care especially to keep our elderly at home I would gladly pay it,but unfortunately the greens would just waste the money like filling in several bowling greens and in some cases like preston park planting wild flowers on them,opposite me on hove seafront they filled a green in only underused as the council did not open the hire bowls facility just like it did not open the mini golf course onhove seafront.
Ou really are a boring repetitive @rse!
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: That Jason does not really listen to residents became very evident to me when he announced during the budget meeting that all residents were in favour of the 4.75% council tax hike. It is time someone reminded him that those two little appendages on the side of his head are not there for purely ornamental purposes.[/p][/quote]If the 4.75% rise went for social care especially to keep our elderly at home I would gladly pay it,but unfortunately the greens would just waste the money like filling in several bowling greens and in some cases like preston park planting wild flowers on them,opposite me on hove seafront they filled a green in only underused as the council did not open the hire bowls facility just like it did not open the mini golf course onhove seafront.[/p][/quote]Ou really are a boring repetitive @rse! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -13

12:39pm Sun 23 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

clubrob6 wrote:
Only 172 people signed is not very good,a museum would not work in the area.As long as the building is saved and turned into family accommodation and not more studio flats I would be happy.But certainly not anymore supermarkets as most sites seen to be ending up as them especially local pubs.
Have you read the article?! It says 'social housing' of which B&H and Portslade needs thousands of units - and nothing about supermarkets!!
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: Only 172 people signed is not very good,a museum would not work in the area.As long as the building is saved and turned into family accommodation and not more studio flats I would be happy.But certainly not anymore supermarkets as most sites seen to be ending up as them especially local pubs.[/p][/quote]Have you read the article?! It says 'social housing' of which B&H and Portslade needs thousands of units - and nothing about supermarkets!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 5

12:50pm Sun 23 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Two questions:

1. Were local councillors involved in the officer identification and councillor decision to allocate this site to housing? It is an historic decision. When was it made?

2. What planning applications have there been and over what period of time?

Residents often do not notice until so far down the road that it is too late and I got the impression from Jason's response to the speaker at P&R that this might have been the case.

I expect ward councillors to be on top of things like this and noticing at a very very early stage or making enquiries and keeping residents in the frame.

All that said, it is a plain fact that since unificaiton - when, I heard recently the then Council leader, now Lord Bassam, immediately dumped Hove officers, keeping the Brighton ones he had in place - since unification, all council activity has been profoundly and absolutely Brighton-centric. And guess what.....

Hove and Portslade councillors allowed it to happen.
Two questions: 1. Were local councillors involved in the officer identification and councillor decision to allocate this site to housing? It is an historic decision. When was it made? 2. What planning applications have there been and over what period of time? Residents often do not notice until so far down the road that it is too late and I got the impression from Jason's response to the speaker at P&R that this might have been the case. I expect ward councillors to be on top of things like this and noticing at a very very early stage or making enquiries and keeping residents in the frame. All that said, it is a plain fact that since unificaiton - when, I heard recently the then Council leader, now Lord Bassam, immediately dumped Hove officers, keeping the Brighton ones he had in place - since unification, all council activity has been profoundly and absolutely Brighton-centric. And guess what..... Hove and Portslade councillors allowed it to happen. saveHOVE
  • Score: 8

1:42pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Sir Prised says...

Democacy is a joke, end of. One tick every four or five years can in no way be described as taking account of voters wishes. It'is now simply a question of voting for the crowd you believe will do least damage. It's a totally negative activity. Until we get far more refenda on issues of broad public inteest, the widespread disillusionment will continue.
Democacy is a joke, end of. One tick every four or five years can in no way be described as taking account of voters wishes. It'is now simply a question of voting for the crowd you believe will do least damage. It's a totally negative activity. Until we get far more refenda on issues of broad public inteest, the widespread disillusionment will continue. Sir Prised
  • Score: 5

2:00pm Sun 23 Mar 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

Housing is far more important than an old building that's been shut down for over 60 years.

Think about the homeless for a change.
Housing is far more important than an old building that's been shut down for over 60 years. Think about the homeless for a change. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 8

2:32pm Sun 23 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
Housing is far more important than an old building that's been shut down for over 60 years.

Think about the homeless for a change.
Why was it shut for 60 years and what attention did local residents pay to that over the 60 years? Where was the interest? It is good that people are becoming interested now, but what else in Portslade could they now also take time to care about? it is an area that needs representation and by people THERE.
[quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: Housing is far more important than an old building that's been shut down for over 60 years. Think about the homeless for a change.[/p][/quote]Why was it shut for 60 years and what attention did local residents pay to that over the 60 years? Where was the interest? It is good that people are becoming interested now, but what else in Portslade could they now also take time to care about? it is an area that needs representation and by people THERE. saveHOVE
  • Score: 12

2:41pm Sun 23 Mar 14

pwlr1966 says...

F.F.S WE NEED HOUSING, DUMB WITS
F.F.S WE NEED HOUSING, DUMB WITS pwlr1966
  • Score: 7

3:01pm Sun 23 Mar 14

pachallis says...

saveHOVE wrote:
Two questions:

1. Were local councillors involved in the officer identification and councillor decision to allocate this site to housing? It is an historic decision. When was it made?

2. What planning applications have there been and over what period of time?

Residents often do not notice until so far down the road that it is too late and I got the impression from Jason's response to the speaker at P&R that this might have been the case.

I expect ward councillors to be on top of things like this and noticing at a very very early stage or making enquiries and keeping residents in the frame.

All that said, it is a plain fact that since unificaiton - when, I heard recently the then Council leader, now Lord Bassam, immediately dumped Hove officers, keeping the Brighton ones he had in place - since unification, all council activity has been profoundly and absolutely Brighton-centric. And guess what.....

Hove and Portslade councillors allowed it to happen.
@Valerie - I had a search on the Planning Register and it looks like this is Application number: BH2013/02455.

According to this the planning application for change of use was received in July 2013 and was sent to the neighbours for comment.in August 2013. The decision for approval was made on 28th October 2013.

It looks as if this planning application, together with hundreds of others was published as being proposed.

Do you think EVERY planning application issued in Brighton & Hove now needs a public enquiry before being approved?

If this is the case, and it was approved by local councillors, what is the problem>
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Two questions: 1. Were local councillors involved in the officer identification and councillor decision to allocate this site to housing? It is an historic decision. When was it made? 2. What planning applications have there been and over what period of time? Residents often do not notice until so far down the road that it is too late and I got the impression from Jason's response to the speaker at P&R that this might have been the case. I expect ward councillors to be on top of things like this and noticing at a very very early stage or making enquiries and keeping residents in the frame. All that said, it is a plain fact that since unificaiton - when, I heard recently the then Council leader, now Lord Bassam, immediately dumped Hove officers, keeping the Brighton ones he had in place - since unification, all council activity has been profoundly and absolutely Brighton-centric. And guess what..... Hove and Portslade councillors allowed it to happen.[/p][/quote]@Valerie - I had a search on the Planning Register and it looks like this is Application number: BH2013/02455. According to this the planning application for change of use was received in July 2013 and was sent to the neighbours for comment.in August 2013. The decision for approval was made on 28th October 2013. It looks as if this planning application, together with hundreds of others was published as being proposed. Do you think EVERY planning application issued in Brighton & Hove now needs a public enquiry before being approved? If this is the case, and it was approved by local councillors, what is the problem> pachallis
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
Only 172 people signed is not very good,a museum would not work in the area.As long as the building is saved and turned into family accommodation and not more studio flats I would be happy.But certainly not anymore supermarkets as most sites seen to be ending up as them especially local pubs.
Have you read the article?! It says 'social housing' of which B&H and Portslade needs thousands of units - and nothing about supermarkets!!
Indeed. The bottom line is we need more housing, and if it can be done by utilising old buildings and unwanted office space as opposed to building on green fields then so much the better. The only issue is balancing the local infrastructure to the increased demand - so they might well need a new supermarket!

Anyway, well done Mr Kitkat. (Not often I say that!)
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: Only 172 people signed is not very good,a museum would not work in the area.As long as the building is saved and turned into family accommodation and not more studio flats I would be happy.But certainly not anymore supermarkets as most sites seen to be ending up as them especially local pubs.[/p][/quote]Have you read the article?! It says 'social housing' of which B&H and Portslade needs thousands of units - and nothing about supermarkets!![/p][/quote]Indeed. The bottom line is we need more housing, and if it can be done by utilising old buildings and unwanted office space as opposed to building on green fields then so much the better. The only issue is balancing the local infrastructure to the increased demand - so they might well need a new supermarket! Anyway, well done Mr Kitkat. (Not often I say that!) Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 7

3:53pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Sir Prised wrote:
Democacy is a joke, end of. One tick every four or five years can in no way be described as taking account of voters wishes. It'is now simply a question of voting for the crowd you believe will do least damage. It's a totally negative activity. Until we get far more refenda on issues of broad public inteest, the widespread disillusionment will continue.
How is this decision 'undemocratic'? Just because the council didn't listen to a few protestors? God knows this council's pushed through enough schemes which I personally didn't support, but I would never say they've been 'undemocratic'.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Prised[/bold] wrote: Democacy is a joke, end of. One tick every four or five years can in no way be described as taking account of voters wishes. It'is now simply a question of voting for the crowd you believe will do least damage. It's a totally negative activity. Until we get far more refenda on issues of broad public inteest, the widespread disillusionment will continue.[/p][/quote]How is this decision 'undemocratic'? Just because the council didn't listen to a few protestors? God knows this council's pushed through enough schemes which I personally didn't support, but I would never say they've been 'undemocratic'. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 4

3:56pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Sir Prised wrote:
Democacy is a joke, end of. One tick every four or five years can in no way be described as taking account of voters wishes. It'is now simply a question of voting for the crowd you believe will do least damage. It's a totally negative activity. Until we get far more refenda on issues of broad public inteest, the widespread disillusionment will continue.
How is it 'undemocratic'? Just because the council didn't listen to a handful of protestors? God knows this council have forced through enough schemes that I personally didn't support, but I'd never say they've been 'undemocratic'.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Prised[/bold] wrote: Democacy is a joke, end of. One tick every four or five years can in no way be described as taking account of voters wishes. It'is now simply a question of voting for the crowd you believe will do least damage. It's a totally negative activity. Until we get far more refenda on issues of broad public inteest, the widespread disillusionment will continue.[/p][/quote]How is it 'undemocratic'? Just because the council didn't listen to a handful of protestors? God knows this council have forced through enough schemes that I personally didn't support, but I'd never say they've been 'undemocratic'. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 3

4:13pm Sun 23 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

What on earth is this clown Alan Robins going on about the councils 'bias to city centre projects'?! This a a project providing housing on your patch in a building which appears to have had no or little use in 60 years and you are saying this is city centre bias!!! What a f****** eejit!!
What on earth is this clown Alan Robins going on about the councils 'bias to city centre projects'?! This a a project providing housing on your patch in a building which appears to have had no or little use in 60 years and you are saying this is city centre bias!!! What a f****** eejit!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 4

6:41pm Sun 23 Mar 14

ARMANA says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
That Jason does not really listen to residents became very evident to me when he announced during the budget meeting that all residents were in favour of the 4.75% council tax hike.

It is time someone reminded him that those two little appendages on the side of his head are not there for purely ornamental purposes.
If the 4.75% rise went for social care especially to keep our elderly at home I would gladly pay it,but unfortunately the greens would just waste the money like filling in several bowling greens and in some cases like preston park planting wild flowers on them,opposite me on hove seafront they filled a green in only underused as the council did not open the hire bowls facility just like it did not open the mini golf course onhove seafront.
Ou really are a boring repetitive @rse!
Well your the expert in boring arse Kemp town blue nose,
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: That Jason does not really listen to residents became very evident to me when he announced during the budget meeting that all residents were in favour of the 4.75% council tax hike. It is time someone reminded him that those two little appendages on the side of his head are not there for purely ornamental purposes.[/p][/quote]If the 4.75% rise went for social care especially to keep our elderly at home I would gladly pay it,but unfortunately the greens would just waste the money like filling in several bowling greens and in some cases like preston park planting wild flowers on them,opposite me on hove seafront they filled a green in only underused as the council did not open the hire bowls facility just like it did not open the mini golf course onhove seafront.[/p][/quote]Ou really are a boring repetitive @rse![/p][/quote]Well your the expert in boring arse Kemp town blue nose, ARMANA
  • Score: 1

6:53pm Sun 23 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

ARMANA wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
That Jason does not really listen to residents became very evident to me when he announced during the budget meeting that all residents were in favour of the 4.75% council tax hike.

It is time someone reminded him that those two little appendages on the side of his head are not there for purely ornamental purposes.
If the 4.75% rise went for social care especially to keep our elderly at home I would gladly pay it,but unfortunately the greens would just waste the money like filling in several bowling greens and in some cases like preston park planting wild flowers on them,opposite me on hove seafront they filled a green in only underused as the council did not open the hire bowls facility just like it did not open the mini golf course onhove seafront.
Ou really are a boring repetitive @rse!
Well your the expert in boring arse Kemp town blue nose,
D!ckhead!!
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: That Jason does not really listen to residents became very evident to me when he announced during the budget meeting that all residents were in favour of the 4.75% council tax hike. It is time someone reminded him that those two little appendages on the side of his head are not there for purely ornamental purposes.[/p][/quote]If the 4.75% rise went for social care especially to keep our elderly at home I would gladly pay it,but unfortunately the greens would just waste the money like filling in several bowling greens and in some cases like preston park planting wild flowers on them,opposite me on hove seafront they filled a green in only underused as the council did not open the hire bowls facility just like it did not open the mini golf course onhove seafront.[/p][/quote]Ou really are a boring repetitive @rse![/p][/quote]Well your the expert in boring arse Kemp town blue nose,[/p][/quote]D!ckhead!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -3

7:23pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Mrs Newcastle says...

Gribbet wrote:
Herbertfarquarson wrote:
For Christ sake 172 people is barely one street. How exciting it would have been though to visit Portslade museum and its wonderful artefacts. The staff there would have been so busy chatting to the hordes of visitors and collecting the income. Perhaps it could have propelled Portslade to the international acclaim and status as a cultural centre and tourist destination it so richly deserves. Shame on you Jason!
"The Portslade Police Museum". Oh boy.
PC Adams Any way my Dad told me the Story about the pond being emptied at the pit ( Vale park) PS Adams was the local policeman at the time in charge in searching for this young school boy who drowned there.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Herbertfarquarson[/bold] wrote: For Christ sake 172 people is barely one street. How exciting it would have been though to visit Portslade museum and its wonderful artefacts. The staff there would have been so busy chatting to the hordes of visitors and collecting the income. Perhaps it could have propelled Portslade to the international acclaim and status as a cultural centre and tourist destination it so richly deserves. Shame on you Jason![/p][/quote]"The Portslade Police Museum". Oh boy.[/p][/quote]PC Adams Any way my Dad told me the Story about the pond being emptied at the pit ( Vale park) PS Adams was the local policeman at the time in charge in searching for this young school boy who drowned there. Mrs Newcastle
  • Score: 2

7:54pm Sun 23 Mar 14

notaconspiracy says...

The problem here is not the Greens, I reckon, but the locals, who fear that 'social housing' may mean 'unsociable neighbours'...

They may be right, but NIMBYism has never been an effective deterrent!
The problem here is not the Greens, I reckon, but the locals, who fear that 'social housing' may mean 'unsociable neighbours'... They may be right, but NIMBYism has never been an effective deterrent! notaconspiracy
  • Score: 7

10:21pm Sun 23 Mar 14

ARMANA says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
That Jason does not really listen to residents became very evident to me when he announced during the budget meeting that all residents were in favour of the 4.75% council tax hike.

It is time someone reminded him that those two little appendages on the side of his head are not there for purely ornamental purposes.
If the 4.75% rise went for social care especially to keep our elderly at home I would gladly pay it,but unfortunately the greens would just waste the money like filling in several bowling greens and in some cases like preston park planting wild flowers on them,opposite me on hove seafront they filled a green in only underused as the council did not open the hire bowls facility just like it did not open the mini golf course onhove seafront.
Ou really are a boring repetitive @rse!
Well your the expert in boring arse Kemp town blue nose,
D!ckhead!!
Dick expert as well, !! seems like a nice boy, !! lol
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: That Jason does not really listen to residents became very evident to me when he announced during the budget meeting that all residents were in favour of the 4.75% council tax hike. It is time someone reminded him that those two little appendages on the side of his head are not there for purely ornamental purposes.[/p][/quote]If the 4.75% rise went for social care especially to keep our elderly at home I would gladly pay it,but unfortunately the greens would just waste the money like filling in several bowling greens and in some cases like preston park planting wild flowers on them,opposite me on hove seafront they filled a green in only underused as the council did not open the hire bowls facility just like it did not open the mini golf course onhove seafront.[/p][/quote]Ou really are a boring repetitive @rse![/p][/quote]Well your the expert in boring arse Kemp town blue nose,[/p][/quote]D!ckhead!![/p][/quote]Dick expert as well, !! seems like a nice boy, !! lol ARMANA
  • Score: -2

11:56pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Penny Portslade says...

Local councillors were not involved or informed in the officer identification and councillor decision to allocate this site to housing.
What was confusing and why it was not picked up when councillors, including myself, looked at the Planning list was that it said "store" in St Andrew Road and that just did not ring any bells, that it was the Old Police Station which had quite recently been locally listed after Cllr Robins became involved and this was supported by the Portslade Community Forum, which I chair. Therefore, we were surprised when we found out that the permission had been granted in October 2013 and work about to commence.
However, in November 2013 the work was put on hold to satisfy a condition attached to planning permission (BH2013/02455) for conversion of the building to a dwelling. Archaeology South-East (a division of the Centre for Applied Archaeology, UCL) carried out a programme of historic building recording at the former Police Station, St Andrew’s Road, Portslade (NGR: 526056, 105140). The work was commissioned by Brighton & Hove City Council.
At the Portslade Commmunity Forum meeting in December when we had reps from Heritage present and our local historian, there was overwhelming support to raise this with a view to looking to preserve the ground floor of the building, possibly as the museum Portslade does not have, unlike Brighton or Hove, and is as the day it was left and still has the cells in place etc.. (Like at Brighton Town Hall where there are no plans proposing to make that into flats!)
The work which was due to start in January and was again put on hold when Councillors requested a meeting and officers agreed to and produce a paper on the possibilities of keeping the building for a museum etc..
This report was received by local councillors the day before P&R meeting last week when the petition was presented and councillors and the community had no opportunity to discuss this paper and put forward any proposals of their own.
This a wonderful building, locally listed and would bring numerous benefits to the community as a heritage centre our 12 local schools would be able to access it frequently as it is within walking distance thus making it a valuable resource and tool for our children's education and could be used a centre for adult learning to engage our residents and allow them to enjoy history. It would also be used as a museum space so our fantastic local passionate historians could engage and share with the community.
Local councillors were not involved or informed in the officer identification and councillor decision to allocate this site to housing. What was confusing and why it was not picked up when councillors, including myself, looked at the Planning list was that it said "store" in St Andrew Road and that just did not ring any bells, that it was the Old Police Station which had quite recently been locally listed after Cllr Robins became involved and this was supported by the Portslade Community Forum, which I chair. Therefore, we were surprised when we found out that the permission had been granted in October 2013 and work about to commence. However, in November 2013 the work was put on hold to satisfy a condition attached to planning permission (BH2013/02455) for conversion of the building to a dwelling. Archaeology South-East (a division of the Centre for Applied Archaeology, UCL) carried out a programme of historic building recording at the former Police Station, St Andrew’s Road, Portslade (NGR: 526056, 105140). The work was commissioned by Brighton & Hove City Council. At the Portslade Commmunity Forum meeting in December when we had reps from Heritage present and our local historian, there was overwhelming support to raise this with a view to looking to preserve the ground floor of the building, possibly as the museum Portslade does not have, unlike Brighton or Hove, and is as the day it was left and still has the cells in place etc.. (Like at Brighton Town Hall where there are no plans proposing to make that into flats!) The work which was due to start in January and was again put on hold when Councillors requested a meeting and officers agreed to and produce a paper on the possibilities of keeping the building for a museum etc.. This report was received by local councillors the day before P&R meeting last week when the petition was presented and councillors and the community had no opportunity to discuss this paper and put forward any proposals of their own. This a wonderful building, locally listed and would bring numerous benefits to the community as a heritage centre our 12 local schools would be able to access it frequently as it is within walking distance thus making it a valuable resource and tool for our children's education and could be used a centre for adult learning to engage our residents and allow them to enjoy history. It would also be used as a museum space so our fantastic local passionate historians could engage and share with the community. Penny Portslade
  • Score: 9

12:18am Mon 24 Mar 14

Gribbet says...

Hove actually...
...Portslade unfortunately.
Hove actually... ...Portslade unfortunately. Gribbet
  • Score: -2

2:21am Mon 24 Mar 14

Dave At Home says...

I don't know why Portslade needs any more housing, it is not as if there is loads of work around, it certainly does not need any NEW council housing as the council sold off all their stocks a few years ago. Portslade town hall was divied up and part sold as the council (B&H) needed the much realised funds available.

I wonder as a suggestion, has Kitkat & Co looked at building affordable housing in the Cemetery on the Old Shoreham Road? Plenty of land there and move all remains up to Bear Road, I am sure they could put racks in like a big warehouse for the remains, can't have land sitting around doing nothing.

BTW Cllr Robins, what is the latest update on that ground keepers digs in Victoria Park??? all gone very quiet there for the moment.
I don't know why Portslade needs any more housing, it is not as if there is loads of work around, it certainly does not need any NEW council housing as the council sold off all their stocks a few years ago. Portslade town hall was divied up and part sold as the council (B&H) needed the much realised funds available. I wonder as a suggestion, has Kitkat & Co looked at building affordable housing in the Cemetery on the Old Shoreham Road? Plenty of land there and move all remains up to Bear Road, I am sure they could put racks in like a big warehouse for the remains, can't have land sitting around doing nothing. BTW Cllr Robins, what is the latest update on that ground keepers digs in Victoria Park??? all gone very quiet there for the moment. Dave At Home
  • Score: 2

6:27am Mon 24 Mar 14

madzukun88 says...

First of all, 172 people is not a lot of people backing the idea. Secondly, I would be completely supportive of that police station being turned into housing. Why? Let's see, the availability of rental properties to people in Brighton, Hove AND Portslade is getting very scarce. People have been complaining about the lack of housing for god knows how long now. I would rather the building be used to actually give people a chance to get their own place in this lovely city, instead of being a wasted museum that I GUARANTEE the 172 supporters would visit once, maybe twice, and then forget about it again until the government want to change it to something else again.
First of all, 172 people is not a lot of people backing the idea. Secondly, I would be completely supportive of that police station being turned into housing. Why? Let's see, the availability of rental properties to people in Brighton, Hove AND Portslade is getting very scarce. People have been complaining about the lack of housing for god knows how long now. I would rather the building be used to actually give people a chance to get their own place in this lovely city, instead of being a wasted museum that I GUARANTEE the 172 supporters would visit once, maybe twice, and then forget about it again until the government want to change it to something else again. madzukun88
  • Score: 2

7:17am Mon 24 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

Labour councillors asleep at the wheel when the planning application was made and now fighting against social housing when thousands are on the waiting list (sadly, no surprise there).

I actually think a museum and community area would be a good idea, but what museum and where would the money come from? Let's not forget Cllr Alan Robins was more than happy to stand in the way of a small additional council tax rise that would have raised £2.7 million a year to save vital council services, now he seems happy to splurge council money on a facility thought up on a whim. This building has been left to rot for years by both Labour and Conservative administrations that were awash with money compared to today, why was nothing done then?

Why does Labour no longer support the most vulnerable and support social housing to help those most in need?
Labour councillors asleep at the wheel when the planning application was made and now fighting against social housing when thousands are on the waiting list (sadly, no surprise there). I actually think a museum and community area would be a good idea, but what museum and where would the money come from? Let's not forget Cllr Alan Robins was more than happy to stand in the way of a small additional council tax rise that would have raised £2.7 million a year to save vital council services, now he seems happy to splurge council money on a facility thought up on a whim. This building has been left to rot for years by both Labour and Conservative administrations that were awash with money compared to today, why was nothing done then? Why does Labour no longer support the most vulnerable and support social housing to help those most in need? HJarrs
  • Score: -4

7:50am Mon 24 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Look at it this way. How many units of social housing would one disused police station provide? Not enough to make a serious dent in the numbers on the waiting lists that's for sure.
Look at it this way. How many units of social housing would one disused police station provide? Not enough to make a serious dent in the numbers on the waiting lists that's for sure. mimseycal
  • Score: 2

7:59am Mon 24 Mar 14

hoveguyactually says...

I wonder what the state of the building would be like a few years after it is turned into "social housing". I suspect lack of funds will lead to neglect, graffiti, rubbish, noise, drug pushing etc., all the things local residents will want to have on their doorstep. The nearest museum is Hove Museum, which is very well looked after, with lots of events involving schools and families, as well as a very pleasant cafe. Turning the old police station into a similar museum would be a great attraction for the area.
I wonder what the state of the building would be like a few years after it is turned into "social housing". I suspect lack of funds will lead to neglect, graffiti, rubbish, noise, drug pushing etc., all the things local residents will want to have on their doorstep. The nearest museum is Hove Museum, which is very well looked after, with lots of events involving schools and families, as well as a very pleasant cafe. Turning the old police station into a similar museum would be a great attraction for the area. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 0

8:05am Mon 24 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

mimseycal wrote:
Look at it this way. How many units of social housing would one disused police station provide? Not enough to make a serious dent in the numbers on the waiting lists that's for sure.
Thats alright then eh?!! Tell that to the half a dozen families at the top of the council waiting list living in temporary accommodation!!
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Look at it this way. How many units of social housing would one disused police station provide? Not enough to make a serious dent in the numbers on the waiting lists that's for sure.[/p][/quote]Thats alright then eh?!! Tell that to the half a dozen families at the top of the council waiting list living in temporary accommodation!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 4

8:12am Mon 24 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Look at it this way. How many units of social housing would one disused police station provide? Not enough to make a serious dent in the numbers on the waiting lists that's for sure.
Thats alright then eh?!! Tell that to the half a dozen families at the top of the council waiting list living in temporary accommodation!!
Nothing like a bit of emotive caterwauling is there ;-)

The fact remains that redeveloping this station into social housing will not house many and there are more then a dozen families in dire need of social housing.

On the other hand, investing in the retaining of local history, allowing for the development of a social space that will educate will benefit a lot more then just a couple of families.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Look at it this way. How many units of social housing would one disused police station provide? Not enough to make a serious dent in the numbers on the waiting lists that's for sure.[/p][/quote]Thats alright then eh?!! Tell that to the half a dozen families at the top of the council waiting list living in temporary accommodation!![/p][/quote]Nothing like a bit of emotive caterwauling is there ;-) The fact remains that redeveloping this station into social housing will not house many and there are more then a dozen families in dire need of social housing. On the other hand, investing in the retaining of local history, allowing for the development of a social space that will educate will benefit a lot more then just a couple of families. mimseycal
  • Score: 1

8:14am Mon 24 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
I wonder what the state of the building would be like a few years after it is turned into "social housing". I suspect lack of funds will lead to neglect, graffiti, rubbish, noise, drug pushing etc., all the things local residents will want to have on their doorstep. The nearest museum is Hove Museum, which is very well looked after, with lots of events involving schools and families, as well as a very pleasant cafe. Turning the old police station into a similar museum would be a great attraction for the area.
Nothing like a bit of clichėd bigotry to start the week!!
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: I wonder what the state of the building would be like a few years after it is turned into "social housing". I suspect lack of funds will lead to neglect, graffiti, rubbish, noise, drug pushing etc., all the things local residents will want to have on their doorstep. The nearest museum is Hove Museum, which is very well looked after, with lots of events involving schools and families, as well as a very pleasant cafe. Turning the old police station into a similar museum would be a great attraction for the area.[/p][/quote]Nothing like a bit of clichėd bigotry to start the week!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -2

9:29am Mon 24 Mar 14

Sir Prised says...

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
Sir Prised wrote:
Democacy is a joke, end of. One tick every four or five years can in no way be described as taking account of voters wishes. It'is now simply a question of voting for the crowd you believe will do least damage. It's a totally negative activity. Until we get far more refenda on issues of broad public inteest, the widespread disillusionment will continue.
How is it 'undemocratic'? Just because the council didn't listen to a handful of protestors? God knows this council have forced through enough schemes that I personally didn't support, but I'd never say they've been 'undemocratic'.
Because on the majority of issues, they have no idea what the public think. You may favour the 20mph zones but not think it right to develop the land by King George VI Avenue. You may want the Traveller camp at Horsdean but not think turning off street lights at night is a great idea. Perhaps you don't like the school's lottery scheme but would favour cheaper parking. Whet they effectively do is divorce the population from the decision making process. We feel we have some input but the reality is, we don't.
[quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Prised[/bold] wrote: Democacy is a joke, end of. One tick every four or five years can in no way be described as taking account of voters wishes. It'is now simply a question of voting for the crowd you believe will do least damage. It's a totally negative activity. Until we get far more refenda on issues of broad public inteest, the widespread disillusionment will continue.[/p][/quote]How is it 'undemocratic'? Just because the council didn't listen to a handful of protestors? God knows this council have forced through enough schemes that I personally didn't support, but I'd never say they've been 'undemocratic'.[/p][/quote]Because on the majority of issues, they have no idea what the public think. You may favour the 20mph zones but not think it right to develop the land by King George VI Avenue. You may want the Traveller camp at Horsdean but not think turning off street lights at night is a great idea. Perhaps you don't like the school's lottery scheme but would favour cheaper parking. Whet they effectively do is divorce the population from the decision making process. We feel we have some input but the reality is, we don't. Sir Prised
  • Score: 3

9:44am Mon 24 Mar 14

Gribbet says...

mimseycal wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Look at it this way. How many units of social housing would one disused police station provide? Not enough to make a serious dent in the numbers on the waiting lists that's for sure.
Thats alright then eh?!! Tell that to the half a dozen families at the top of the council waiting list living in temporary accommodation!!
Nothing like a bit of emotive caterwauling is there ;-)

The fact remains that redeveloping this station into social housing will not house many and there are more then a dozen families in dire need of social housing.

On the other hand, investing in the retaining of local history, allowing for the development of a social space that will educate will benefit a lot more then just a couple of families.
What local history?
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Look at it this way. How many units of social housing would one disused police station provide? Not enough to make a serious dent in the numbers on the waiting lists that's for sure.[/p][/quote]Thats alright then eh?!! Tell that to the half a dozen families at the top of the council waiting list living in temporary accommodation!![/p][/quote]Nothing like a bit of emotive caterwauling is there ;-) The fact remains that redeveloping this station into social housing will not house many and there are more then a dozen families in dire need of social housing. On the other hand, investing in the retaining of local history, allowing for the development of a social space that will educate will benefit a lot more then just a couple of families.[/p][/quote]What local history? Gribbet
  • Score: 0

10:09am Mon 24 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Gribbet wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Look at it this way. How many units of social housing would one disused police station provide? Not enough to make a serious dent in the numbers on the waiting lists that's for sure.
Thats alright then eh?!! Tell that to the half a dozen families at the top of the council waiting list living in temporary accommodation!!
Nothing like a bit of emotive caterwauling is there ;-)

The fact remains that redeveloping this station into social housing will not house many and there are more then a dozen families in dire need of social housing.

On the other hand, investing in the retaining of local history, allowing for the development of a social space that will educate will benefit a lot more then just a couple of families.
What local history?
Well, there you go Gribbet ... allow the old Police Station to become a museum and you'll have your chance to find out ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Look at it this way. How many units of social housing would one disused police station provide? Not enough to make a serious dent in the numbers on the waiting lists that's for sure.[/p][/quote]Thats alright then eh?!! Tell that to the half a dozen families at the top of the council waiting list living in temporary accommodation!![/p][/quote]Nothing like a bit of emotive caterwauling is there ;-) The fact remains that redeveloping this station into social housing will not house many and there are more then a dozen families in dire need of social housing. On the other hand, investing in the retaining of local history, allowing for the development of a social space that will educate will benefit a lot more then just a couple of families.[/p][/quote]What local history?[/p][/quote]Well, there you go Gribbet ... allow the old Police Station to become a museum and you'll have your chance to find out ;-) mimseycal
  • Score: 6

10:11am Mon 24 Mar 14

Fight_Back says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
I wonder what the state of the building would be like a few years after it is turned into "social housing". I suspect lack of funds will lead to neglect, graffiti, rubbish, noise, drug pushing etc., all the things local residents will want to have on their doorstep. The nearest museum is Hove Museum, which is very well looked after, with lots of events involving schools and families, as well as a very pleasant cafe. Turning the old police station into a similar museum would be a great attraction for the area.
Nothing like a bit of clichėd bigotry to start the week!!
Are you actually able to enter into adult debate without throwing insults around ? Your posts suggest not.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: I wonder what the state of the building would be like a few years after it is turned into "social housing". I suspect lack of funds will lead to neglect, graffiti, rubbish, noise, drug pushing etc., all the things local residents will want to have on their doorstep. The nearest museum is Hove Museum, which is very well looked after, with lots of events involving schools and families, as well as a very pleasant cafe. Turning the old police station into a similar museum would be a great attraction for the area.[/p][/quote]Nothing like a bit of clichėd bigotry to start the week!![/p][/quote]Are you actually able to enter into adult debate without throwing insults around ? Your posts suggest not. Fight_Back
  • Score: 0

10:39am Mon 24 Mar 14

argchat says...

Whether people like it or not, thousands of homes will be have to built along with re-development of exisiting buildings to keep up with demand for housing in the South East. We have to expect it now. Lack of house building by the last government, at the same time of openely encouraging migration from the EU and outside the EU is why we have arrived in this situation. Even without migration we would still need housing, but we certainly would need it on the same scales we keep being told about. Last figure I read was that 200,000 homes a year will need to be built for the next 10 years, so you tell me. Development in Woddingdean, possibly Newhaven and other areas that have been reported over the last few months, I hope the roads and services can cope.
Whether people like it or not, thousands of homes will be have to built along with re-development of exisiting buildings to keep up with demand for housing in the South East. We have to expect it now. Lack of house building by the last government, at the same time of openely encouraging migration from the EU and outside the EU is why we have arrived in this situation. Even without migration we would still need housing, but we certainly would need it on the same scales we keep being told about. Last figure I read was that 200,000 homes a year will need to be built for the next 10 years, so you tell me. Development in Woddingdean, possibly Newhaven and other areas that have been reported over the last few months, I hope the roads and services can cope. argchat
  • Score: 2

11:23am Mon 24 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Fight_Back wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
I wonder what the state of the building would be like a few years after it is turned into "social housing". I suspect lack of funds will lead to neglect, graffiti, rubbish, noise, drug pushing etc., all the things local residents will want to have on their doorstep. The nearest museum is Hove Museum, which is very well looked after, with lots of events involving schools and families, as well as a very pleasant cafe. Turning the old police station into a similar museum would be a great attraction for the area.
Nothing like a bit of clichėd bigotry to start the week!!
Are you actually able to enter into adult debate without throwing insults around ? Your posts suggest not.
Perhaps you think that those comments were not clichėd or or tinged with bigotry but unfortunately I'll have to disagree!
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: I wonder what the state of the building would be like a few years after it is turned into "social housing". I suspect lack of funds will lead to neglect, graffiti, rubbish, noise, drug pushing etc., all the things local residents will want to have on their doorstep. The nearest museum is Hove Museum, which is very well looked after, with lots of events involving schools and families, as well as a very pleasant cafe. Turning the old police station into a similar museum would be a great attraction for the area.[/p][/quote]Nothing like a bit of clichėd bigotry to start the week!![/p][/quote]Are you actually able to enter into adult debate without throwing insults around ? Your posts suggest not.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you think that those comments were not clichėd or or tinged with bigotry but unfortunately I'll have to disagree! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -2

11:57am Mon 24 Mar 14

Bill in Hanover says...

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
Housing is far more important than an old building that's been shut down for over 60 years.

Think about the homeless for a change.
It is to be social housing and if the surrounding area consists of privately owned houses they won't want the hoi polloi moiving in as it will affect the value of their property.
[quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: Housing is far more important than an old building that's been shut down for over 60 years. Think about the homeless for a change.[/p][/quote]It is to be social housing and if the surrounding area consists of privately owned houses they won't want the hoi polloi moiving in as it will affect the value of their property. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 1

12:02pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Gribbet says...

mimseycal wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Look at it this way. How many units of social housing would one disused police station provide? Not enough to make a serious dent in the numbers on the waiting lists that's for sure.
Thats alright then eh?!! Tell that to the half a dozen families at the top of the council waiting list living in temporary accommodation!!
Nothing like a bit of emotive caterwauling is there ;-)

The fact remains that redeveloping this station into social housing will not house many and there are more then a dozen families in dire need of social housing.

On the other hand, investing in the retaining of local history, allowing for the development of a social space that will educate will benefit a lot more then just a couple of families.
What local history?
Well, there you go Gribbet ... allow the old Police Station to become a museum and you'll have your chance to find out ;-)
I'm not stopping it, but I couldn't be bothered to go all the way to Portslade to spend 5mins walking round an old average-sized police station. Where local history is concerned, I'd put it on a par with the Wimpy in Hove.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Look at it this way. How many units of social housing would one disused police station provide? Not enough to make a serious dent in the numbers on the waiting lists that's for sure.[/p][/quote]Thats alright then eh?!! Tell that to the half a dozen families at the top of the council waiting list living in temporary accommodation!![/p][/quote]Nothing like a bit of emotive caterwauling is there ;-) The fact remains that redeveloping this station into social housing will not house many and there are more then a dozen families in dire need of social housing. On the other hand, investing in the retaining of local history, allowing for the development of a social space that will educate will benefit a lot more then just a couple of families.[/p][/quote]What local history?[/p][/quote]Well, there you go Gribbet ... allow the old Police Station to become a museum and you'll have your chance to find out ;-)[/p][/quote]I'm not stopping it, but I couldn't be bothered to go all the way to Portslade to spend 5mins walking round an old average-sized police station. Where local history is concerned, I'd put it on a par with the Wimpy in Hove. Gribbet
  • Score: 3

12:08pm Mon 24 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Wow ... at long last. A comment from Gribbet that is a tad more than the usual acerbic throw away comment. Well done Gribbet.
Wow ... at long last. A comment from Gribbet that is a tad more than the usual acerbic throw away comment. Well done Gribbet. mimseycal
  • Score: 1

12:57pm Mon 24 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Penny Portslade wrote:
Local councillors were not involved or informed in the officer identification and councillor decision to allocate this site to housing.
What was confusing and why it was not picked up when councillors, including myself, looked at the Planning list was that it said "store" in St Andrew Road and that just did not ring any bells, that it was the Old Police Station which had quite recently been locally listed after Cllr Robins became involved and this was supported by the Portslade Community Forum, which I chair. Therefore, we were surprised when we found out that the permission had been granted in October 2013 and work about to commence.
However, in November 2013 the work was put on hold to satisfy a condition attached to planning permission (BH2013/02455) for conversion of the building to a dwelling. Archaeology South-East (a division of the Centre for Applied Archaeology, UCL) carried out a programme of historic building recording at the former Police Station, St Andrew’s Road, Portslade (NGR: 526056, 105140). The work was commissioned by Brighton & Hove City Council.
At the Portslade Commmunity Forum meeting in December when we had reps from Heritage present and our local historian, there was overwhelming support to raise this with a view to looking to preserve the ground floor of the building, possibly as the museum Portslade does not have, unlike Brighton or Hove, and is as the day it was left and still has the cells in place etc.. (Like at Brighton Town Hall where there are no plans proposing to make that into flats!)
The work which was due to start in January and was again put on hold when Councillors requested a meeting and officers agreed to and produce a paper on the possibilities of keeping the building for a museum etc..
This report was received by local councillors the day before P&R meeting last week when the petition was presented and councillors and the community had no opportunity to discuss this paper and put forward any proposals of their own.
This a wonderful building, locally listed and would bring numerous benefits to the community as a heritage centre our 12 local schools would be able to access it frequently as it is within walking distance thus making it a valuable resource and tool for our children's education and could be used a centre for adult learning to engage our residents and allow them to enjoy history. It would also be used as a museum space so our fantastic local passionate historians could engage and share with the community.
oh Penny......better late than never but oh my what a confession.

Cllrs Penny Gilbey and Les Hamilton are both Portslade cllrs and both sit on the Planning Committee that GRANTED the planning consent. How could you NOT have known what building was being referred to when looking at the plans list. It is your JOB to know the area and to look into these things. Look on Google Earth or the Satellite or Street views if you don't want to actually visit. You could have rung up the planning officer. Gone and looked at it.

No excuses here. In fact it looks worse now this comment has been posted.

The fact is all councillors are subservient to the interests of their political party and none more so than Labour cllrs in their Lord Bassam controlled Brighton-centric Party.

Portslade has exactly one proper champion - Portslade resident and esteemed local historian, Judy Middleton; and I suggest you all get cracking, form a proper residents planning and conservation group and ensure you have her on board. Call it savePORTSLADE, why not! Make sure it is not colonised by political party hacks seeking a leg-up and developers seeking influence or you will end up like the Hove Civic Society or the Regency Society.

Old Portslade has fabulous history and treasure to be protected and for this police station to have just sat there unnoticed by successions of councillors and residents is appalling.

Gribbet is a sneering and sarcastic fool to dismiss Portslade as worth anything at all. It is neglected. It has never been given the attention by the Brighton mob since gaining it that it needed and deserved.....and not least because it is a key area in the regeneration future of the Port of Shoreham.

There is a group called KAWHRA which formed to counter the Portzed development on Kingsway but its reach into Portslade is teensy. And Portslade has not stood up for itself until now.

And you could not count on cllrs to alert you to anything like the future use of that building in any of those party political leaflets seeking your votes, eh. SHAME!
[quote][p][bold]Penny Portslade[/bold] wrote: Local councillors were not involved or informed in the officer identification and councillor decision to allocate this site to housing. What was confusing and why it was not picked up when councillors, including myself, looked at the Planning list was that it said "store" in St Andrew Road and that just did not ring any bells, that it was the Old Police Station which had quite recently been locally listed after Cllr Robins became involved and this was supported by the Portslade Community Forum, which I chair. Therefore, we were surprised when we found out that the permission had been granted in October 2013 and work about to commence. However, in November 2013 the work was put on hold to satisfy a condition attached to planning permission (BH2013/02455) for conversion of the building to a dwelling. Archaeology South-East (a division of the Centre for Applied Archaeology, UCL) carried out a programme of historic building recording at the former Police Station, St Andrew’s Road, Portslade (NGR: 526056, 105140). The work was commissioned by Brighton & Hove City Council. At the Portslade Commmunity Forum meeting in December when we had reps from Heritage present and our local historian, there was overwhelming support to raise this with a view to looking to preserve the ground floor of the building, possibly as the museum Portslade does not have, unlike Brighton or Hove, and is as the day it was left and still has the cells in place etc.. (Like at Brighton Town Hall where there are no plans proposing to make that into flats!) The work which was due to start in January and was again put on hold when Councillors requested a meeting and officers agreed to and produce a paper on the possibilities of keeping the building for a museum etc.. This report was received by local councillors the day before P&R meeting last week when the petition was presented and councillors and the community had no opportunity to discuss this paper and put forward any proposals of their own. This a wonderful building, locally listed and would bring numerous benefits to the community as a heritage centre our 12 local schools would be able to access it frequently as it is within walking distance thus making it a valuable resource and tool for our children's education and could be used a centre for adult learning to engage our residents and allow them to enjoy history. It would also be used as a museum space so our fantastic local passionate historians could engage and share with the community.[/p][/quote]oh Penny......better late than never but oh my what a confession. Cllrs Penny Gilbey and Les Hamilton are both Portslade cllrs and both sit on the Planning Committee that GRANTED the planning consent. How could you NOT have known what building was being referred to when looking at the plans list. It is your JOB to know the area and to look into these things. Look on Google Earth or the Satellite or Street views if you don't want to actually visit. You could have rung up the planning officer. Gone and looked at it. No excuses here. In fact it looks worse now this comment has been posted. The fact is all councillors are subservient to the interests of their political party and none more so than Labour cllrs in their Lord Bassam controlled Brighton-centric Party. Portslade has exactly one proper champion - Portslade resident and esteemed local historian, Judy Middleton; and I suggest you all get cracking, form a proper residents planning and conservation group and ensure you have her on board. Call it savePORTSLADE, why not! Make sure it is not colonised by political party hacks seeking a leg-up and developers seeking influence or you will end up like the Hove Civic Society or the Regency Society. Old Portslade has fabulous history and treasure to be protected and for this police station to have just sat there unnoticed by successions of councillors and residents is appalling. Gribbet is a sneering and sarcastic fool to dismiss Portslade as worth anything at all. It is neglected. It has never been given the attention by the Brighton mob since gaining it that it needed and deserved.....and not least because it is a key area in the regeneration future of the Port of Shoreham. There is a group called KAWHRA which formed to counter the Portzed development on Kingsway but its reach into Portslade is teensy. And Portslade has not stood up for itself until now. And you could not count on cllrs to alert you to anything like the future use of that building in any of those party political leaflets seeking your votes, eh. SHAME! saveHOVE
  • Score: 4

1:12pm Mon 24 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

ricky24680 wrote:
there are plans for a peaceful and silent protest outside the old police station on wednesday 26th march at 4pm in St Andrews Rd, Portslade... come and show your support and send a message to the council... next year is an election year and remember "they work for us"
Your councillors let it happen.
[quote][p][bold]ricky24680[/bold] wrote: there are plans for a peaceful and silent protest outside the old police station on wednesday 26th march at 4pm in St Andrews Rd, Portslade... come and show your support and send a message to the council... next year is an election year and remember "they work for us"[/p][/quote]Your councillors let it happen. saveHOVE
  • Score: 4

1:22pm Mon 24 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Spooky Sue wrote:
Hi, perhaps I can shed some light on this. I come from goring by sea and there is a disused office block a few hundred yards from my house, for a few years now they have been going to pull it down and redevelop with some giant tower of flats, retail etc, however recently a planning notice appeared outside the building but none of us neighbours received any correspondence which we usually do. I proceeded to contact worthing council planning department and spoke to the head guy and he told me that due to a recent change by the government commercial buildings could be turned into housing with very little consultation and even neighbours do not need to be informed, from this I learnt said building by my house is now not going to be demolished but prettied up into 44 flats and the man said it would probably go straight through within a couple of weeks, so perhaps you could find out if this new government rule is behind your old police station being turned into housing.
Very good contribution.

To elaborate: Eric Pickles refused a request from BHCC to allow aeas of exemption from allowing existing office accommodation to be converted to flats use without a planning application.

An Article 4 Direction, which just throws marbles under their feet and no better, has been put on a strip of Brighton from the Pier up through the London Rd corridor to try to protect office space and on City Park in Hove. But nothing is in place in Portslade to protect office space from conversion. The Article 4 Direction just turns automatic into at least a planning application. Think this is mad? Don't vote Tory or LibDem! It is their Coalition policy.

If residents can identif a Portslade office area (with their councillors) that needs this protection, go or it. But unless you can persuade BHCC to not implement the planning consent, this historic Portslade building is going the way of Hove General Hospital (which was at least converted to flats and not demolished and it is social housing that gives NO problems) and other old buildings.

Even the hated Anston Hse is now proposed to be converted to flats and there is a planning application live for it.
[quote][p][bold]Spooky Sue[/bold] wrote: Hi, perhaps I can shed some light on this. I come from goring by sea and there is a disused office block a few hundred yards from my house, for a few years now they have been going to pull it down and redevelop with some giant tower of flats, retail etc, however recently a planning notice appeared outside the building but none of us neighbours received any correspondence which we usually do. I proceeded to contact worthing council planning department and spoke to the head guy and he told me that due to a recent change by the government commercial buildings could be turned into housing with very little consultation and even neighbours do not need to be informed, from this I learnt said building by my house is now not going to be demolished but prettied up into 44 flats and the man said it would probably go straight through within a couple of weeks, so perhaps you could find out if this new government rule is behind your old police station being turned into housing.[/p][/quote]Very good contribution. To elaborate: Eric Pickles refused a request from BHCC to allow aeas of exemption from allowing existing office accommodation to be converted to flats use without a planning application. An Article 4 Direction, which just throws marbles under their feet and no better, has been put on a strip of Brighton from the Pier up through the London Rd corridor to try to protect office space and on City Park in Hove. But nothing is in place in Portslade to protect office space from conversion. The Article 4 Direction just turns automatic into at least a planning application. Think this is mad? Don't vote Tory or LibDem! It is their Coalition policy. If residents can identif a Portslade office area (with their councillors) that needs this protection, go or it. But unless you can persuade BHCC to not implement the planning consent, this historic Portslade building is going the way of Hove General Hospital (which was at least converted to flats and not demolished and it is social housing that gives NO problems) and other old buildings. Even the hated Anston Hse is now proposed to be converted to flats and there is a planning application live for it. saveHOVE
  • Score: 2

2:46pm Mon 24 Mar 14

PJW Brighton says...

saveHOVE wrote:
Spooky Sue wrote:
Hi, perhaps I can shed some light on this. I come from goring by sea and there is a disused office block a few hundred yards from my house, for a few years now they have been going to pull it down and redevelop with some giant tower of flats, retail etc, however recently a planning notice appeared outside the building but none of us neighbours received any correspondence which we usually do. I proceeded to contact worthing council planning department and spoke to the head guy and he told me that due to a recent change by the government commercial buildings could be turned into housing with very little consultation and even neighbours do not need to be informed, from this I learnt said building by my house is now not going to be demolished but prettied up into 44 flats and the man said it would probably go straight through within a couple of weeks, so perhaps you could find out if this new government rule is behind your old police station being turned into housing.
Very good contribution.

To elaborate: Eric Pickles refused a request from BHCC to allow aeas of exemption from allowing existing office accommodation to be converted to flats use without a planning application.

An Article 4 Direction, which just throws marbles under their feet and no better, has been put on a strip of Brighton from the Pier up through the London Rd corridor to try to protect office space and on City Park in Hove. But nothing is in place in Portslade to protect office space from conversion. The Article 4 Direction just turns automatic into at least a planning application. Think this is mad? Don't vote Tory or LibDem! It is their Coalition policy.

If residents can identif a Portslade office area (with their councillors) that needs this protection, go or it. But unless you can persuade BHCC to not implement the planning consent, this historic Portslade building is going the way of Hove General Hospital (which was at least converted to flats and not demolished and it is social housing that gives NO problems) and other old buildings.

Even the hated Anston Hse is now proposed to be converted to flats and there is a planning application live for it.
I think saveHOVE has strayed away from the original purpose of the article, which was to have a go at the Greens, not to start a serious discussion about current planning policy and legislation.
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spooky Sue[/bold] wrote: Hi, perhaps I can shed some light on this. I come from goring by sea and there is a disused office block a few hundred yards from my house, for a few years now they have been going to pull it down and redevelop with some giant tower of flats, retail etc, however recently a planning notice appeared outside the building but none of us neighbours received any correspondence which we usually do. I proceeded to contact worthing council planning department and spoke to the head guy and he told me that due to a recent change by the government commercial buildings could be turned into housing with very little consultation and even neighbours do not need to be informed, from this I learnt said building by my house is now not going to be demolished but prettied up into 44 flats and the man said it would probably go straight through within a couple of weeks, so perhaps you could find out if this new government rule is behind your old police station being turned into housing.[/p][/quote]Very good contribution. To elaborate: Eric Pickles refused a request from BHCC to allow aeas of exemption from allowing existing office accommodation to be converted to flats use without a planning application. An Article 4 Direction, which just throws marbles under their feet and no better, has been put on a strip of Brighton from the Pier up through the London Rd corridor to try to protect office space and on City Park in Hove. But nothing is in place in Portslade to protect office space from conversion. The Article 4 Direction just turns automatic into at least a planning application. Think this is mad? Don't vote Tory or LibDem! It is their Coalition policy. If residents can identif a Portslade office area (with their councillors) that needs this protection, go or it. But unless you can persuade BHCC to not implement the planning consent, this historic Portslade building is going the way of Hove General Hospital (which was at least converted to flats and not demolished and it is social housing that gives NO problems) and other old buildings. Even the hated Anston Hse is now proposed to be converted to flats and there is a planning application live for it.[/p][/quote]I think saveHOVE has strayed away from the original purpose of the article, which was to have a go at the Greens, not to start a serious discussion about current planning policy and legislation. PJW Brighton
  • Score: 2

3:22pm Mon 24 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

PJW Brighton wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
Spooky Sue wrote:
Hi, perhaps I can shed some light on this. I come from goring by sea and there is a disused office block a few hundred yards from my house, for a few years now they have been going to pull it down and redevelop with some giant tower of flats, retail etc, however recently a planning notice appeared outside the building but none of us neighbours received any correspondence which we usually do. I proceeded to contact worthing council planning department and spoke to the head guy and he told me that due to a recent change by the government commercial buildings could be turned into housing with very little consultation and even neighbours do not need to be informed, from this I learnt said building by my house is now not going to be demolished but prettied up into 44 flats and the man said it would probably go straight through within a couple of weeks, so perhaps you could find out if this new government rule is behind your old police station being turned into housing.
Very good contribution.

To elaborate: Eric Pickles refused a request from BHCC to allow aeas of exemption from allowing existing office accommodation to be converted to flats use without a planning application.

An Article 4 Direction, which just throws marbles under their feet and no better, has been put on a strip of Brighton from the Pier up through the London Rd corridor to try to protect office space and on City Park in Hove. But nothing is in place in Portslade to protect office space from conversion. The Article 4 Direction just turns automatic into at least a planning application. Think this is mad? Don't vote Tory or LibDem! It is their Coalition policy.

If residents can identif a Portslade office area (with their councillors) that needs this protection, go or it. But unless you can persuade BHCC to not implement the planning consent, this historic Portslade building is going the way of Hove General Hospital (which was at least converted to flats and not demolished and it is social housing that gives NO problems) and other old buildings.

Even the hated Anston Hse is now proposed to be converted to flats and there is a planning application live for it.
I think saveHOVE has strayed away from the original purpose of the article, which was to have a go at the Greens, not to start a serious discussion about current planning policy and legislation.
Having a go at the Greens should be for a genuine reason! Jason may not have appreciated the fact the petitioner was underinformed and should have....maybe. His answer was correct. He could have been more detailed in his response so she was able to see just how far behind the curve the petition was. That would have been the kind and diplomatic thing to do. But he probably did not have that much detail in front of him. He was given a response by officers....and the officers let him down. That is what I suspect happened.

My contributions here, and the one from Goring - and the one from Penny Gilbey too - serve to help people understand what the bigger picture is, how they got it wrong in coming to the issue too late and why would you NOT want them to have that understanding? Are you a developer who revels in residents being in the dark? I hope not.

No politician has clean hands on this one. Of any stripe or colour. Everyone takes advantage of resident non-involvement and ignorance. That is partly the fault of residents who do not involve themselves enough but it is NOT a Green sin on this occasion.
[quote][p][bold]PJW Brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spooky Sue[/bold] wrote: Hi, perhaps I can shed some light on this. I come from goring by sea and there is a disused office block a few hundred yards from my house, for a few years now they have been going to pull it down and redevelop with some giant tower of flats, retail etc, however recently a planning notice appeared outside the building but none of us neighbours received any correspondence which we usually do. I proceeded to contact worthing council planning department and spoke to the head guy and he told me that due to a recent change by the government commercial buildings could be turned into housing with very little consultation and even neighbours do not need to be informed, from this I learnt said building by my house is now not going to be demolished but prettied up into 44 flats and the man said it would probably go straight through within a couple of weeks, so perhaps you could find out if this new government rule is behind your old police station being turned into housing.[/p][/quote]Very good contribution. To elaborate: Eric Pickles refused a request from BHCC to allow aeas of exemption from allowing existing office accommodation to be converted to flats use without a planning application. An Article 4 Direction, which just throws marbles under their feet and no better, has been put on a strip of Brighton from the Pier up through the London Rd corridor to try to protect office space and on City Park in Hove. But nothing is in place in Portslade to protect office space from conversion. The Article 4 Direction just turns automatic into at least a planning application. Think this is mad? Don't vote Tory or LibDem! It is their Coalition policy. If residents can identif a Portslade office area (with their councillors) that needs this protection, go or it. But unless you can persuade BHCC to not implement the planning consent, this historic Portslade building is going the way of Hove General Hospital (which was at least converted to flats and not demolished and it is social housing that gives NO problems) and other old buildings. Even the hated Anston Hse is now proposed to be converted to flats and there is a planning application live for it.[/p][/quote]I think saveHOVE has strayed away from the original purpose of the article, which was to have a go at the Greens, not to start a serious discussion about current planning policy and legislation.[/p][/quote]Having a go at the Greens should be for a genuine reason! Jason may not have appreciated the fact the petitioner was underinformed and should have....maybe. His answer was correct. He could have been more detailed in his response so she was able to see just how far behind the curve the petition was. That would have been the kind and diplomatic thing to do. But he probably did not have that much detail in front of him. He was given a response by officers....and the officers let him down. That is what I suspect happened. My contributions here, and the one from Goring - and the one from Penny Gilbey too - serve to help people understand what the bigger picture is, how they got it wrong in coming to the issue too late and why would you NOT want them to have that understanding? Are you a developer who revels in residents being in the dark? I hope not. No politician has clean hands on this one. Of any stripe or colour. Everyone takes advantage of resident non-involvement and ignorance. That is partly the fault of residents who do not involve themselves enough but it is NOT a Green sin on this occasion. saveHOVE
  • Score: 3

3:44pm Mon 24 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Sadly that is true. Local councillors have a duty to keep their residents informed of what is going on.
Sadly that is true. Local councillors have a duty to keep their residents informed of what is going on. mimseycal
  • Score: 2

4:33pm Mon 24 Mar 14

pachallis says...

@saveHOVE/Valery - 'Portslade has exactly one proper champion - Portslade resident and esteemed local historian, Judy Middleton; and I suggest you all get cracking, form a proper residents planning and conservation group and ensure you have her on board. Call it savePORTSLADE, why not! Make sure it is not colonised by political party hacks seeking a leg-up and developers seeking influence or you will end up like the Hove Civic Society or the Regency Society'.'

If savePORTSLADE were a proper democratically organised society that interested residents can join which holds public meetings and had published objectives and a constitution then I would be totally in favor.

If, however, you a talking about a savePORTSLADE modeled on saveHOVE where there is only one real member - yourself - who acts as a self-appointed super-nimby organisation to oppose all and every development based on you own personal views, then we need a similar group like 'a fish needs a bicycle'.

I am not a labour supported, but IMHO Penny Gilbey is a great asset to the residents of Portslade across all her responsibilities - not just reviewing planning applications.

That the old police station is NOT (AFAIK) a listed building in a conservation area and the frontage would not have changed as part of this planning application seems to have been ignored.

IMHO getting this run-down building that must have been vacant for 60 years back into use is most important.

Using this building as a museum / heritage centre in the middle of a residential street is idiotic - better to use part of Portslade Town Hall instead - or why not use Foredown Tower which is largely unused?

This whole debate is a complete waste of time and if the end result is pushing through an undemocratic savePORTSLADE society modeled on saveHOVE then heaven help us all!
@saveHOVE/Valery - 'Portslade has exactly one proper champion - Portslade resident and esteemed local historian, Judy Middleton; and I suggest you all get cracking, form a proper residents planning and conservation group and ensure you have her on board. Call it savePORTSLADE, why not! Make sure it is not colonised by political party hacks seeking a leg-up and developers seeking influence or you will end up like the Hove Civic Society or the Regency Society'.' If savePORTSLADE were a proper democratically organised society that interested residents can join which holds public meetings and had published objectives and a constitution then I would be totally in favor. If, however, you a talking about a savePORTSLADE modeled on saveHOVE where there is only one real member - yourself - who acts as a self-appointed super-nimby organisation to oppose all and every development based on you own personal views, then we need a similar group like 'a fish needs a bicycle'. I am not a labour supported, but IMHO Penny Gilbey is a great asset to the residents of Portslade across all her responsibilities - not just reviewing planning applications. That the old police station is NOT (AFAIK) a listed building in a conservation area and the frontage would not have changed as part of this planning application seems to have been ignored. IMHO getting this run-down building that must have been vacant for 60 years back into use is most important. Using this building as a museum / heritage centre in the middle of a residential street is idiotic - better to use part of Portslade Town Hall instead - or why not use Foredown Tower which is largely unused? This whole debate is a complete waste of time and if the end result is pushing through an undemocratic savePORTSLADE society modeled on saveHOVE then heaven help us all! pachallis
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Mon 24 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Constituted groups can become a joke. And mindbendingly unaccountable. When Delia Forester supported glass penthouses on top of the Old Market (planning apps were her role on the Regency Society committee of Trustees) she did so without reference to the committee and members. When this was revealed, it was withdrawn; they had a row; and in the end the report to committee shamefully showed the Regency Society declaring they were split and therefore would make no comment on the development affecting the Listed, Regency Old Market. That is what a constitution, committee and public meetings can buy you.

Recently the Chair of the Hove Civic Society committed it to support of the i360 without reference to Committee and membership.

At least I, the head of the snake, if you like, do nothing without the very large email list of over 200 being informed, and as there are over 500 supporters on Twitter I assume saveHOVE has a value and performs a service that I am proud to say is about shared involvement and it is out in the open.

You are wrong to think that the saveHOVE network of supporters is somehow just ME. And we confer online and work together in small numbers as and when we need to do things together. How do you suppose saveHOVE has been able to stay on top of what goes on at Medina House, for instance? By working with others is the answer. Im just the bit you can see in print and at council meetings. If they disagreed they would unfollow on Twitter and ask to be removed from the saveHOVE supporters email list.

Members of most groups are there for social reasons. Those associated with saveHOVE are expected to WORK.
Constituted groups can become a joke. And mindbendingly unaccountable. When Delia Forester supported glass penthouses on top of the Old Market (planning apps were her role on the Regency Society committee of Trustees) she did so without reference to the committee and members. When this was revealed, it was withdrawn; they had a row; and in the end the report to committee shamefully showed the Regency Society declaring they were split and therefore would make no comment on the development affecting the Listed, Regency Old Market. That is what a constitution, committee and public meetings can buy you. Recently the Chair of the Hove Civic Society committed it to support of the i360 without reference to Committee and membership. At least I, the head of the snake, if you like, do nothing without the very large email list of over 200 being informed, and as there are over 500 supporters on Twitter I assume saveHOVE has a value and performs a service that I am proud to say is about shared involvement and it is out in the open. You are wrong to think that the saveHOVE network of supporters is somehow just ME. And we confer online and work together in small numbers as and when we need to do things together. How do you suppose saveHOVE has been able to stay on top of what goes on at Medina House, for instance? By working with others is the answer. Im just the bit you can see in print and at council meetings. If they disagreed they would unfollow on Twitter and ask to be removed from the saveHOVE supporters email list. Members of most groups are there for social reasons. Those associated with saveHOVE are expected to WORK. saveHOVE
  • Score: -1

8:10pm Mon 24 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

pachallis wrote:
@saveHOVE/Valery - 'Portslade has exactly one proper champion - Portslade resident and esteemed local historian, Judy Middleton; and I suggest you all get cracking, form a proper residents planning and conservation group and ensure you have her on board. Call it savePORTSLADE, why not! Make sure it is not colonised by political party hacks seeking a leg-up and developers seeking influence or you will end up like the Hove Civic Society or the Regency Society'.'

If savePORTSLADE were a proper democratically organised society that interested residents can join which holds public meetings and had published objectives and a constitution then I would be totally in favor.

If, however, you a talking about a savePORTSLADE modeled on saveHOVE where there is only one real member - yourself - who acts as a self-appointed super-nimby organisation to oppose all and every development based on you own personal views, then we need a similar group like 'a fish needs a bicycle'.

I am not a labour supported, but IMHO Penny Gilbey is a great asset to the residents of Portslade across all her responsibilities - not just reviewing planning applications.

That the old police station is NOT (AFAIK) a listed building in a conservation area and the frontage would not have changed as part of this planning application seems to have been ignored.

IMHO getting this run-down building that must have been vacant for 60 years back into use is most important.

Using this building as a museum / heritage centre in the middle of a residential street is idiotic - better to use part of Portslade Town Hall instead - or why not use Foredown Tower which is largely unused?

This whole debate is a complete waste of time and if the end result is pushing through an undemocratic savePORTSLADE society modeled on saveHOVE then heaven help us all!
Portslade cllrs have let people down. They can be counted on the pump out the leaflets like the best of them all trumpeting the party line and "achievements". But few inform residents of changes to the place like this one concerning an historic police station and involving them in council affairs they would not normally have a way of learning about. The Argus is not at every meeting or writing as much in cash-strapped times about Council business as it did in years now gone by. Councillors HAVE to pick up that slack. Residents HAVE to get more involved.

Penny is one of those I have considered to be a worthwhile councillor. But as a member of the planning committee there are questions on this occasion about this issue because 172 of her voters did a petition and there is a demo planned for Wednesday outside the old police station.

This is a time to look with clear eyes at what has gone right and what has gone wrong and to consider how residents and councillors can work together or residents can become more planning savvy to look at Portslade and its future in a better way.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @saveHOVE/Valery - 'Portslade has exactly one proper champion - Portslade resident and esteemed local historian, Judy Middleton; and I suggest you all get cracking, form a proper residents planning and conservation group and ensure you have her on board. Call it savePORTSLADE, why not! Make sure it is not colonised by political party hacks seeking a leg-up and developers seeking influence or you will end up like the Hove Civic Society or the Regency Society'.' If savePORTSLADE were a proper democratically organised society that interested residents can join which holds public meetings and had published objectives and a constitution then I would be totally in favor. If, however, you a talking about a savePORTSLADE modeled on saveHOVE where there is only one real member - yourself - who acts as a self-appointed super-nimby organisation to oppose all and every development based on you own personal views, then we need a similar group like 'a fish needs a bicycle'. I am not a labour supported, but IMHO Penny Gilbey is a great asset to the residents of Portslade across all her responsibilities - not just reviewing planning applications. That the old police station is NOT (AFAIK) a listed building in a conservation area and the frontage would not have changed as part of this planning application seems to have been ignored. IMHO getting this run-down building that must have been vacant for 60 years back into use is most important. Using this building as a museum / heritage centre in the middle of a residential street is idiotic - better to use part of Portslade Town Hall instead - or why not use Foredown Tower which is largely unused? This whole debate is a complete waste of time and if the end result is pushing through an undemocratic savePORTSLADE society modeled on saveHOVE then heaven help us all![/p][/quote]Portslade cllrs have let people down. They can be counted on the pump out the leaflets like the best of them all trumpeting the party line and "achievements". But few inform residents of changes to the place like this one concerning an historic police station and involving them in council affairs they would not normally have a way of learning about. The Argus is not at every meeting or writing as much in cash-strapped times about Council business as it did in years now gone by. Councillors HAVE to pick up that slack. Residents HAVE to get more involved. Penny is one of those I have considered to be a worthwhile councillor. But as a member of the planning committee there are questions on this occasion about this issue because 172 of her voters did a petition and there is a demo planned for Wednesday outside the old police station. This is a time to look with clear eyes at what has gone right and what has gone wrong and to consider how residents and councillors can work together or residents can become more planning savvy to look at Portslade and its future in a better way. saveHOVE
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Mon 24 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

What has happened with regards to the I360 and this police station in Portslade is indicative of a breakdown in the democratic process.

Residents need to become more active and councillors need to accept that they are accountable to their constituents ... it is a two way street.
What has happened with regards to the I360 and this police station in Portslade is indicative of a breakdown in the democratic process. Residents need to become more active and councillors need to accept that they are accountable to their constituents ... it is a two way street. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

11:46pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Penny Portslade says...

Just to clarify a few points raised by the comments about the old Police Station building in South Portslade ward and the planning application. Currently, much of the building is already is used for social housing and you can see net curtains at many of the windows. The community only wished to make use of part of the ground floor which are a couple of rooms and the three cells which are in tact and this was supported bt The Portslade Community Forum which I chair.
The planning application was for change of use from a "store" for one unit of housing and was granted under delegated powers and not by The Planning Committee so there was never any discussion by any councillors.
As to using Portslade Town Hall in South Portslade ward, it is currently undergoing refurbishment and until last year there was one unit of social housing there where caretakers and their families had lived for over 40 years. Ironically this housing was lost with the refurb and the family was rehoused and now the service has been commissioned to a private company.
Foredown Tower, which is in my ward of North Portslade, is no longer run by the council, it is used by PACA for Adult Learning and the camera obscura is now run by volunteers.
At the P&R meeting Portslade residents heard that the council needs to prioritise where the heritage bids are put and clearly Portslade is not considered a priority.
Just to clarify a few points raised by the comments about the old Police Station building in South Portslade ward and the planning application. Currently, much of the building is already is used for social housing and you can see net curtains at many of the windows. The community only wished to make use of part of the ground floor which are a couple of rooms and the three cells which are in tact and this was supported bt The Portslade Community Forum which I chair. The planning application was for change of use from a "store" for one unit of housing and was granted under delegated powers and not by The Planning Committee so there was never any discussion by any councillors. As to using Portslade Town Hall in South Portslade ward, it is currently undergoing refurbishment and until last year there was one unit of social housing there where caretakers and their families had lived for over 40 years. Ironically this housing was lost with the refurb and the family was rehoused and now the service has been commissioned to a private company. Foredown Tower, which is in my ward of North Portslade, is no longer run by the council, it is used by PACA for Adult Learning and the camera obscura is now run by volunteers. At the P&R meeting Portslade residents heard that the council needs to prioritise where the heritage bids are put and clearly Portslade is not considered a priority. Penny Portslade
  • Score: 0

9:33am Tue 25 Mar 14

pachallis says...

saveHOVE wrote:
Constituted groups can become a joke. And mindbendingly unaccountable. When Delia Forester supported glass penthouses on top of the Old Market (planning apps were her role on the Regency Society committee of Trustees) she did so without reference to the committee and members. When this was revealed, it was withdrawn; they had a row; and in the end the report to committee shamefully showed the Regency Society declaring they were split and therefore would make no comment on the development affecting the Listed, Regency Old Market. That is what a constitution, committee and public meetings can buy you.

Recently the Chair of the Hove Civic Society committed it to support of the i360 without reference to Committee and membership.

At least I, the head of the snake, if you like, do nothing without the very large email list of over 200 being informed, and as there are over 500 supporters on Twitter I assume saveHOVE has a value and performs a service that I am proud to say is about shared involvement and it is out in the open.

You are wrong to think that the saveHOVE network of supporters is somehow just ME. And we confer online and work together in small numbers as and when we need to do things together. How do you suppose saveHOVE has been able to stay on top of what goes on at Medina House, for instance? By working with others is the answer. Im just the bit you can see in print and at council meetings. If they disagreed they would unfollow on Twitter and ask to be removed from the saveHOVE supporters email list.

Members of most groups are there for social reasons. Those associated with saveHOVE are expected to WORK.
@Valery - that's a new meaning to the word 'democracy' that I haven't met before!

Just because you have twitter followers and send out emails does NOT mean you have a democratic process - it may just show that some people are interested in your personal views - maybe from those that oppose you but want to be aware of what you are saying?

For example, how many of your email recipients/twitter followers are Hove residents?

You are not accountable to anyone - did you canvas views form your followers before you responded to this article or did you do respond purely based upon your own personal views?

Also, I note that on your twitter feed you now cover Hove AND Brighton and seem to comment on Rottingdean developments as well - if this is the case then I assume you already count Portslade as part of your remit for imposing your personal views on planning applications across the city?
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Constituted groups can become a joke. And mindbendingly unaccountable. When Delia Forester supported glass penthouses on top of the Old Market (planning apps were her role on the Regency Society committee of Trustees) she did so without reference to the committee and members. When this was revealed, it was withdrawn; they had a row; and in the end the report to committee shamefully showed the Regency Society declaring they were split and therefore would make no comment on the development affecting the Listed, Regency Old Market. That is what a constitution, committee and public meetings can buy you. Recently the Chair of the Hove Civic Society committed it to support of the i360 without reference to Committee and membership. At least I, the head of the snake, if you like, do nothing without the very large email list of over 200 being informed, and as there are over 500 supporters on Twitter I assume saveHOVE has a value and performs a service that I am proud to say is about shared involvement and it is out in the open. You are wrong to think that the saveHOVE network of supporters is somehow just ME. And we confer online and work together in small numbers as and when we need to do things together. How do you suppose saveHOVE has been able to stay on top of what goes on at Medina House, for instance? By working with others is the answer. Im just the bit you can see in print and at council meetings. If they disagreed they would unfollow on Twitter and ask to be removed from the saveHOVE supporters email list. Members of most groups are there for social reasons. Those associated with saveHOVE are expected to WORK.[/p][/quote]@Valery - that's a new meaning to the word 'democracy' that I haven't met before! Just because you have twitter followers and send out emails does NOT mean you have a democratic process - it may just show that some people are interested in your personal views - maybe from those that oppose you but want to be aware of what you are saying? For example, how many of your email recipients/twitter followers are Hove residents? You are not accountable to anyone - did you canvas views form your followers before you responded to this article or did you do respond purely based upon your own personal views? Also, I note that on your twitter feed you now cover Hove AND Brighton and seem to comment on Rottingdean developments as well - if this is the case then I assume you already count Portslade as part of your remit for imposing your personal views on planning applications across the city? pachallis
  • Score: 2

11:13am Tue 25 Mar 14

rambot says...

i used to frequent this building many years ago, in the ol,d days when the councils used to supply furniture for people moving into council housing that were homeless and had no furniture or anything, the council used to accept donations of furniture and we were forever moving stuff into it and out of it, the reason it was probably forgotten is because it was just a council store for the above items,
i used to frequent this building many years ago, in the ol,d days when the councils used to supply furniture for people moving into council housing that were homeless and had no furniture or anything, the council used to accept donations of furniture and we were forever moving stuff into it and out of it, the reason it was probably forgotten is because it was just a council store for the above items, rambot
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Tue 25 Mar 14

saveHOVE says...

Penny tells us that the planning decision was made under delegated powers which suggests there were fewer than the 5 objectors needed to take it to planning committee. Assuming that the public notice(s) remained in situ, and neighbour consultation letters went to addresses that currently exist, with people in them,(not always the case) then strictly local opinion cannot have been strong/against.

And a group of people that focusses on local history would be useful there and it need not involve meetings, constitutions, etc.

The planning register publishes a wkly list of applications that were registered in the previous week. Look online every Saturday morning to keep on top of what is coming along thst you can give attention to and alert others to.
Penny tells us that the planning decision was made under delegated powers which suggests there were fewer than the 5 objectors needed to take it to planning committee. Assuming that the public notice(s) remained in situ, and neighbour consultation letters went to addresses that currently exist, with people in them,(not always the case) then strictly local opinion cannot have been strong/against. And a group of people that focusses on local history would be useful there and it need not involve meetings, constitutions, etc. The planning register publishes a wkly list of applications that were registered in the previous week. Look online every Saturday morning to keep on top of what is coming along thst you can give attention to and alert others to. saveHOVE
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Tue 25 Mar 14

pachallis says...

saveHOVE wrote:
Penny tells us that the planning decision was made under delegated powers which suggests there were fewer than the 5 objectors needed to take it to planning committee. Assuming that the public notice(s) remained in situ, and neighbour consultation letters went to addresses that currently exist, with people in them,(not always the case) then strictly local opinion cannot have been strong/against.

And a group of people that focusses on local history would be useful there and it need not involve meetings, constitutions, etc.

The planning register publishes a wkly list of applications that were registered in the previous week. Look online every Saturday morning to keep on top of what is coming along thst you can give attention to and alert others to.
Valery - thanks for this - so perhaps in future you might do some investigating before starting one of you personal vitriolic attacks on various councillors, companies and MPs.

Perhaps you should consider having separate logons for when you are posting comments as yourself on articles, and a different one when you are posting as the official spokesperson for saveHOVE - or are they, indeed, exactly the same thing?.

Perhaps, in this case, the approved consultation process was followed and insufficient local residents did, in fact, complain and this could have been the actual situation?

I think you should consider apologizing to Penny and the other local Portslade councillors after all your slanderous comments!

If you can get Amanda Scales (who I believe is an historian) and/or Judy Middleton to form a historical group to review planning applications that would be great - as long as they have a proper democratic organisation rather than the autocratic way you run saveHOVE.

I might even want to join such a group!
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Penny tells us that the planning decision was made under delegated powers which suggests there were fewer than the 5 objectors needed to take it to planning committee. Assuming that the public notice(s) remained in situ, and neighbour consultation letters went to addresses that currently exist, with people in them,(not always the case) then strictly local opinion cannot have been strong/against. And a group of people that focusses on local history would be useful there and it need not involve meetings, constitutions, etc. The planning register publishes a wkly list of applications that were registered in the previous week. Look online every Saturday morning to keep on top of what is coming along thst you can give attention to and alert others to.[/p][/quote]Valery - thanks for this - so perhaps in future you might do some investigating before starting one of you personal vitriolic attacks on various councillors, companies and MPs. Perhaps you should consider having separate logons for when you are posting comments as yourself on articles, and a different one when you are posting as the official spokesperson for saveHOVE - or are they, indeed, exactly the same thing?. Perhaps, in this case, the approved consultation process was followed and insufficient local residents did, in fact, complain and this could have been the actual situation? I think you should consider apologizing to Penny and the other local Portslade councillors after all your slanderous comments! If you can get Amanda Scales (who I believe is an historian) and/or Judy Middleton to form a historical group to review planning applications that would be great - as long as they have a proper democratic organisation rather than the autocratic way you run saveHOVE. I might even want to join such a group! pachallis
  • Score: 1

10:20pm Tue 25 Mar 14

brightonpip says...

So basically the original story and photo here was a load of misleading bull implying a much larger demolition and development than the conversion of a small storage area to a couple of housing units. Still provoked the usual and expected anti council backlash we're used to. I say council deliberately as it seems it not just the greens getting grief this time.

Stay off the band wagon if you don't know enough about what's on there... (Then that's hard to find out when reporters base their research on google street view)
So basically the original story and photo here was a load of misleading bull implying a much larger demolition and development than the conversion of a small storage area to a couple of housing units. Still provoked the usual and expected anti council backlash we're used to. I say council deliberately as it seems it not just the greens getting grief this time. Stay off the band wagon if you don't know enough about what's on there... (Then that's hard to find out when reporters base their research on google street view) brightonpip
  • Score: 3

9:59pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Carrothead says...

I lived at the Police Station building in St. Andrews Road, from 1955 to 1964. My father was a policeman, and our front door was the smaller door next to the main entrance. The windows above the station main entrance were those of our bathroom (no hot water, initially!), and my brother and I had a bedroom directly above the Police Station itself.

As kids we had ways of getting into the Police Station when it was closed, and we even played in the prison cells.

I frequently visit the Brighton area, and walk or drive by the old Police Station. It is a unique building, well worth saving.
I lived at the Police Station building in St. Andrews Road, from 1955 to 1964. My father was a policeman, and our front door was the smaller door next to the main entrance. The windows above the station main entrance were those of our bathroom (no hot water, initially!), and my brother and I had a bedroom directly above the Police Station itself. As kids we had ways of getting into the Police Station when it was closed, and we even played in the prison cells. I frequently visit the Brighton area, and walk or drive by the old Police Station. It is a unique building, well worth saving. Carrothead
  • Score: 3

10:10am Sun 13 Apr 14

Brensta says...

My family moved into the Sergeants house, 67 to the left of the main station in January 1967 and it was still a working station at that time. It closed when they opened Holland Road, but there was a transition period, not sure how long. We were 6 kids so had the time of our lives playing in the cells, we used the hay loft above the stable block at the back as our den and all the kids from St Andrews Road played with us. It was quite a gang. Most of us were at St Mary's RC primary, it was a great community. The front of our house was bigger at the top/ front as the bedroom went over the station ground floor. If my sisters and I were mucking about at bed time, my dad used to hear us, come back from work and sort us out before resuming his shift!

This building should have been redeveloped years ago. Brighton & Hove council should have sold it on to a developer for flats years for a sympathetic redevelopment. Not sure a museum would be well attended and there are many museums in the area that I'm pretty sure local residents have never even been in! Is it the nimbys who don't want social housing? This area has always been an area where people start out in life. in our day it had a huge Irish community, now lots of Polish and Easter Europeans. What wouldn't be good is a half way house or similar, but flats for people to live in, why not? It's about time they did something, it's a valuable resource.
My family moved into the Sergeants house, 67 to the left of the main station in January 1967 and it was still a working station at that time. It closed when they opened Holland Road, but there was a transition period, not sure how long. We were 6 kids so had the time of our lives playing in the cells, we used the hay loft above the stable block at the back as our den and all the kids from St Andrews Road played with us. It was quite a gang. Most of us were at St Mary's RC primary, it was a great community. The front of our house was bigger at the top/ front as the bedroom went over the station ground floor. If my sisters and I were mucking about at bed time, my dad used to hear us, come back from work and sort us out before resuming his shift! This building should have been redeveloped years ago. Brighton & Hove council should have sold it on to a developer for flats years for a sympathetic redevelopment. Not sure a museum would be well attended and there are many museums in the area that I'm pretty sure local residents have never even been in! Is it the nimbys who don't want social housing? This area has always been an area where people start out in life. in our day it had a huge Irish community, now lots of Polish and Easter Europeans. What wouldn't be good is a half way house or similar, but flats for people to live in, why not? It's about time they did something, it's a valuable resource. Brensta
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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