Your Argus
TEXT your pictures, videos and messages to 80360. Start your message with SUPIC or email your tip-offs »
Planners felt pressured into backing King Alfred development
9:59pm Tuesday 15th January 2008
Planning officials penned an angry letter to their boss complaining they were made to feel pressured into backing the £270 million seafront King Alfred development decision, it has emerged.
Brighton and Hove City Council has admitted staff sent the memo to city planner Martin Randall.
But the council has refused to release the correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act because it claims the letter could affect public confidence in the planning process and undermine the decision.
The Regency Society, which has been fighting for the information to be put into the public domain, has appealed against the decision.
The note was dispatched on March 2, 2007 just weeks before councillors voted to approve the development, which Mr Randall had recommended for approval.
The revelation confirms rumours of disquiet among council staff in the run-up to the planning decision.
Three senior officers - the development control manager, area manager and the King Alfred case officer - have since left the department.
It is not known whether the controversial planning decision played a part in their decision to leave, or whether they signed the memo.
The council has argued it is not in the public interest to disclose the contents of the letter because if the information was not viewed in context it would affect public confidence in the planning process and undermine the decision.
The council also believes that releasing the information would not help the public better understand how the decision to grant planning permission was reached.
The council wrote: "We are of the opinion that the public interest in withholding the information would outweigh the public interest in disclosure, as the concerns raised in the memorandum have been responded to and did not necessitate further action or exchanges.
"If the information was disclosed, it could mislead the public and undermine confidence in the planning process."
Michael Ray, the chairman of the Regency Society and a former town planner, said the letter should be released.
He said: "These documents would expose the malaise that prevailed in the city council's environmental services department at the time that the decision to grant consent was made.
"The public is entitled to know what went on.
"I believe that the responsible development control staff were unhappy with the scheme, as submitted, and could not forward a favourable recommendation, preferring instead to negotiate for changes."
A council spokesman said he could not discuss the information request as the appeal was being dealt with by the Information Commissioner.
He added: "As no judicial review is now forthcoming, the planning permission is legally watertight.
"It cannot and will not be revoked due to any document disclosures.
"The public interest would be best served by moving on and ensuring the development really delivers the public benefits promised by the developers."
Your Say YourArgus
Mike, Hove says...
10:35pm Tue 15 Jan 08
being sued in the US due to a leaking similar 'state of the art ' building in Boston .How were Karis allowed to sign a planning agreement with the council without submitting three years of accredited accounts ?
Time for the council to release all the relevant information
about this dodgy development.
John, Hove says...
10:51pm Tue 15 Jan 08
Valerie Paynter, saveHOVE, Hove says...
10:57pm Tue 15 Jan 08
Martin, West Hove says...
11:10pm Tue 15 Jan 08
julie cully, Hove says...
11:42pm Tue 15 Jan 08
Brian Hitchen CBE, Hove says...
12:16am Wed 16 Jan 08
Surely not!
I expect my comment to be removed. The truth., Brighton says...
12:49am Wed 16 Jan 08
steeve, brighton says...
1:38am Wed 16 Jan 08
steve wrote:you are plainly stupid. they're all still there on the earlier version of the story.
So what happened to the previous 23 comments ?? I guess the truth can hurt.
to quote you, i guess the truth can hurt
Graham, says...
1:40am Wed 16 Jan 08
julie cully wrote:Look at the version at 3.39 with all the comments still there!!!
23 previuos comments removed? Is trhis true? Are we being censored now ? Argus, who are you trying to protect? Guess you'll wipe this one too then.
You should be censored to protect the public from your gormless wittering.
zombie nethead, southwick says...
1:42am Wed 16 Jan 08
I expect my comment to be removed. The truth. wrote:another moron
Where are all the other comments? There were Loads here earlier all pretty much against this "Micky mouse" project, from true Brightonians. What a scandal. If you don't want to here the truth Argus, then do not give us the opportunity to voice our opinions.
try scrolling down the news index
Harry, Lewes says...
1:47am Wed 16 Jan 08
If the information was disclosed, it could mislead the public and undermine confidence in the planning process.
Sounds as though the council has managed to do that without releasing the information. I suspect disclosing the information would help restore public confidence a little, particularly if the council released the related correspondence and actions. If this level of transparency would still dent public confidence, the damage will have been caused not by disclosure but by the underlying words and actions.
steve, bb says...
6:32am Wed 16 Jan 08
Paula, hove says...
6:37am Wed 16 Jan 08
steve, cv says...
7:12am Wed 16 Jan 08
Paula wrote:paula there is dents all over the place i think the most inportent thing here is administration was not in hove at the the time they no we r frends but they wont to tell us both that we like musterd on our toe nail do you?
Not releasing this information has dented any confidence I had left that this decision was the right one. the new administration was voted in laergely on this issue in Hove - they need to act now.
shrek, far,far away says...
7:46am Wed 16 Jan 08
Always right, location,location says...
8:33am Wed 16 Jan 08
shrek wrote:Look Shrek
its about time someone spoke out about what really goes on at the council. lets face it, given a proper vote, the vast majority of brightonians would not want this eyesore. if burgess hill can have a decent leisure centre without all the housing, why cant brighton and hove. all the people want is a good pool, and sports facilities. of course, that could be built at waterhall, where there is plenty of space for all the requirements plus the parking
Please don't compare what goes on in Burgess Hill with Brighton. Burgess Hill should be flattened and forgotten about. True Brightonians are so laid back they couldn't give a monkeys about whatever goes up at the King Alfred. Let them get on with it. It will make people happier, might even make you happier. Come on, smile let them get on with it. What do think they said about the piers all that time ago?
graham, hove says...
8:39am Wed 16 Jan 08
If the planning dept view was to reject the application or at the very least have reservations, then what political pressure was brought to bear, and for what reason?
Kickboxer, Ray Ellerton's pad says...
8:45am Wed 16 Jan 08
Always right wrote:listen, Always Right, let me quote some legal jargon,
shrek wrote: its about time someone spoke out about what really goes on at the council. lets face it, given a proper vote, the vast majority of brightonians would not want this eyesore. if burgess hill can have a decent leisure centre without all the housing, why cant brighton and hove. all the people want is a good pool, and sports facilities. of course, that could be built at waterhall, where there is plenty of space for all the requirements plus the parkingLook Shrek Please don't compare what goes on in Burgess Hill with Brighton. Burgess Hill should be flattened and forgotten about. True Brightonians are so laid back they couldn't give a monkeys about whatever goes up at the King Alfred. Let them get on with it. It will make people happier, might even make you happier. Come on, smile let them get on with it. What do think they said about the piers all that time ago?
Town and Countries Act, 1978
Section 34, para 6
"...and the construction of said edifice, whilst contsructed as a permamnent edifice as defined within section 45, appendix 3 of this Act (which this is)shall not be permitted where it encroaches upon the high Tide level (which this will)unless permitted by Permission of the Secretary of State..."
it goes on.....
"...such permission shall be granted in 'extreme' (it doesn't define extreme unfortunately) circumstances..."
I cannot see these circumstances as extreme.
Buildings Act, 1987 states
"The construction must be in wood, brick or concrete.....and shall not be in plastic"
Not sure if that helps our case.
So, Mr Know-All, I think this shoots down your case & makes you look an idiot as you haven't obviously checked all the facts.
The Argus may find this Act worth investigating a little deeper.
bill, hove says...
9:01am Wed 16 Jan 08
GKING, BRIGHTON says...
9:03am Wed 16 Jan 08
The previous Labour administration pulled a fast one days before the council elections knowing that they were likely to lose overhaul control.Although this doesnt suprise me as it is typical of central government.More disappointing is the response of the new council(NOC).CAN OF WORMS MAYBE
Frankie, Brighton & Hove says...
9:06am Wed 16 Jan 08
Funny how several of the planning officers left after the decision. Perhaps they had some integrity.
Michael Ray was an excellent Planning Officer and he is right. The people of Brighton and Hove need to see what the angry letter said. Then they can judge for themselves.
Witholding of information by the Council increases suspicion of their motives.
p. robertson, says...
9:07am Wed 16 Jan 08
lily cole, prom says...
9:11am Wed 16 Jan 08
Council, Kings and Barts says...
9:17am Wed 16 Jan 08
Frank, Brighton says...
9:21am Wed 16 Jan 08
SUE, Hove says...
9:45am Wed 16 Jan 08
bill, says...
9:48am Wed 16 Jan 08
Iain, hove says...
9:51am Wed 16 Jan 08
And I speak as a passionate supporter of modernist buildings, and a visitor to Bilbao's Guggenheim.
Acheron, Hove says...
9:53am Wed 16 Jan 08
Well thank you B&H council for branding us all idiots! I suppose that they believe they are the only people with the brains to understand anything!
How about having a bit of faith in the people you serve and let us make up our minds.
Surely if everything about this process was above board there is no way that the documents release could undermine public confidence. What they really mean to say is that if we release this document the public will realise just how questionable all this has been!
Flat Foot Soozie, Brunswick Square says...
11:22am Wed 16 Jan 08
fact, Hanover says...
11:43am Wed 16 Jan 08
Flat Foot Soozie wrote:Don't talk rubbish, and get a job.
How was David Watkins leant on to swing the vote?
No one was leant on so why post something ridiculous like this without evidence. Then again, it is typical of the usual posts by you.
i hope the Argus withdraw your comment for legal reasons.
steve, bb says...
11:47am Wed 16 Jan 08
Flat Foot Soozie wrote:you see soozie he when up to him put one hand on him said is it love your after or just a good time with that he said his fairwells and was last seen 3 miles u the moter way ,,i hope that explains things 4 you my sweet hart.
How was David Watkins leant on to swing the vote?
Flat Foot Soozie, Brusnwick Square says...
11:52am Wed 16 Jan 08
fact wrote:The article says the planners were leant on, and left.
Flat Foot Soozie wrote:Don't talk rubbish, and get a job.
How was David Watkins leant on to swing the vote?
No one was leant on so why post something ridiculous like this without evidence. Then again, it is typical of the usual posts by you.
i hope the Argus withdraw your comment for legal reasons.
The LibDems had before claimed to be against it.
Watkins said in the Argus he did nt think much of the design - but voted for it!
Something happened. What?
max, brunswick square says...
12:03pm Wed 16 Jan 08
And don't forget it is the Greens who did a dirty deal over a £1 million bus scheme to and from the King Alfred in return for their support.
Winston Smith, Hove says...
12:11pm Wed 16 Jan 08
Maxine, hove says...
12:26pm Wed 16 Jan 08
The waste ground to the west and the car park etc could be used for a low impact housing scheme to compliment the area rather than detract from it unlike the Lego Towers,
All the council really need to do is to look after what they have got rather than chasing the schemes to make them imfamous or a bit better off when they are ousted.
Get together and scrap the Towers the residents of Hove if asked to decide would say no any way.
jerry, says...
12:50pm Wed 16 Jan 08
Ray Ellerton, Portslade says...
1:09pm Wed 16 Jan 08
Flat Foot Soozie wrote:as fact said before, you don't have a clue
fact wrote:The article says the planners were leant on, and left. The LibDems had before claimed to be against it. Watkins said in the Argus he did nt think much of the design - but voted for it! Something happened. What?Flat Foot Soozie wrote: How was David Watkins leant on to swing the vote?Don\'t talk rubbish, and get a job. No one was leant on so why post something ridiculous like this without evidence. Then again, it is typical of the usual posts by you. i hope the Argus withdraw your comment for legal reasons.
This is typical of the spouting you usually post which is worded to get some response - if you just want your name in lights then get a job, stoopid girl.
Jerry, at last someone with a useful comment. As you say, the Greens were for it , even though surely this goes against their thinking ? How does this work ? how can they change minds at a whim like this ?
Tim, Brighton says...
2:32pm Wed 16 Jan 08
Can't wait till the demolition crews arrive any time now and knock down the revolting eyesore that stands there at present.
OAP Nimbys go live in Eastbourne or something!
Flat Foot Soozie, Brunswick Square says...
2:52pm Wed 16 Jan 08
Katy, Hove says...
3:22pm Wed 16 Jan 08
Gentleman Jim, Brighton says...
3:53pm Wed 16 Jan 08
Suki, Brighton says...
4:22pm Wed 16 Jan 08
A lot of money, Brighton says...
4:22pm Wed 16 Jan 08
http://www.bdonline.
co.uk/story.asp?sect
ioncode=437&storycod
e=3090914
lyn, Grandavenue says...
4:32pm Wed 16 Jan 08
Michael, Hove says...
4:41pm Wed 16 Jan 08
He added: "As no judicial review is now forthcoming, the planning permission is legally watertight."
In other words, we have been let down utterly by a system that should protect the interests of the local taxpayer over that of big business.
shrek, far,far away says...
5:10pm Wed 16 Jan 08
heidi, hove says...
7:44pm Wed 16 Jan 08
te design for a simple swimming pool / sports centre that WILL benefit locals, I'm all for it.
Peter, Hove says...
10:25pm Wed 16 Jan 08
What does OUR ELECTED COUNCIL (least they forget they were not appointed by God) fear that we the people -- their employers -- will learn through publication of such a letter?
tobi, brighton says...
10:53am Thu 17 Jan 08
Flat Foot Soozie wrote:FLAT HEADED FLOOZIE I HOPE THEY SHUT THAT INTERNET CAFE DOWN SOON ANOTHER LOAD OF OLD COBBLERS
How was David Watkins leant on to swing the vote?
Paul, Brighton Seafront says...
4:20pm Fri 18 Jan 08
Maxine wrote:It is old and outdated. The new proposals for the sport centre are a much needed improvement for a city severely lacking in high class sports facilities.
Whats wrong with King Alfreds in its present form anyway. The waste ground to the west and the car park etc could be used for a low impact housing scheme to compliment the area rather than detract from it unlike the Lego Towers, All the council really need to do is to look after what they have got rather than chasing the schemes to make them imfamous or a bit better off when they are ousted. Get together and scrap the Towers the residents of Hove if asked to decide would say no any way.
I hope they hurry up and build the **** thing, before I am a bed bound old codger with no use for the development.
Your sayYourArgus
Add your comment
Register for a FREE The Argus account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.
Please register now or sign in below to continue.
In this section
- Outrage as 'Poohaven' sewage plant is approved
- Lightning strikes in spectacular storms
- Woman's noisy sex life lands her in court
- Two men die in horror smashes
- Police blunder sends locals porn
- Baker gets Royal approval
- Shop closure hits wedding
- Police stop led to stash of drugs
- Rooftop protest at airport
- Angels step in to help families through trauma
Essential Links
Sponsored Links
Editor's Choice
Win one of 10 pairs of tickets to Loop
The Argus has teamed up with LOOP, one of Brighton’s most innovative festivals, to offer you the opportunity to see tomorrow’s next big things. LOOP’s cutting edge line-up is packed with the hottest, new UK and international talent.
At Home By The Sea
The Argus has teamed up with Concord 2 and is proud to be a media partner of At Home By The Sea – Sussex’s newest beach festival.
Comment: Should tobacco be on display?
The public is being consulted on new proposals to restrict tobacco advertising. Proposals include removing branding and logos from packaging, a minimum pack size of 20 and banning displays of cigarettes in shops.
What's On Live Travel YourArgus
Hot Jobs
Local Services
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
steve, an honest place says...
10:22pm Tue 15 Jan 08