THE old town hall in Church Road was one of the best loved buildings in Hove until it was destroyed by a tremendous fire in January 1966.

Designed by Alfred Waterhouse, whose best known work is the Natural History Museum in South Kensington, it had a handsome clock tower, warm red bricks and a magnificent pipe organ.

Its loss was much lamented but Hove Council boldly chose something entirely different for the replacement.

Councillors hired a young local architect, John Wells-Thorpe, who had impressed them in 1962 when he had redesigned the George Street shopping centre. By now he had a national reputation.

Firmly believing that under local government reorganisation, Hove would be the centre of a vast new council stretching from the Adur to the Ouse, they commissioned a building to match.

Far bigger in its footprint than the old town hall, it required demolition of several homes both for the town hall and a multi-storey car park opposite.

But by the time it was opened 40 years ago, the town hall was home only to a Hove Council whose powers had been much diminished.

Hove was left with an uncompromisingly modern building in the brutalist style most notably shown in the National Theatre by the Thames in London.

Built with ribbed concrete and acres of glass on the exterior, it was designed to impress rather than to be loved.

There was much criticism of it but the new building soon became well used for meetings, entertainment and exhibitions.

The interior was spectacular with a huge entrance hall, an impressive staircase and a minor tropical forest above the main entrance.

Imaginative use was made of wood and there was a pleasing courtyard. In an echo of the past, it also had a clock tower which could be seen all along Church Road.

Gradually Hove had learned to live with this unique building and it has attracted national praise. It is one of the best examples of heroic architecture from its period.

Yet Brighton and Hove City Council, which now owns the town hall, wants to renovate and extend it to house staff from other buildings.

It is part of a larger project to make better use of civic buildings which also includes selling King’s House in Grand Avenue.

The Twentieth Century Society has placed Hove Town Hall at the top of its At Risk register, claiming the changes will ruin its appearance.

But the council says that Hove Town Hall has reached the end of its useful life and must be renovated.

Previous changes made more than 20 years ago including an extension and filling in the under-croft detracted from the overall design and annoyed Mr Wells-Thorpe who was not consulted about them.

But those alterations were nothing compared with the current proposal to build over the entrance and to re-glaze much of the building in an unbecoming green.

The council is conducting an internal consultation on how best to make these changes to one of the most notable modern buildings in the city.

It should also seek the views of John Wells-Thorpe, now in his eighties and still living in the city. No one knows the building better than him.

Buildings often have to be altered to meet changing circumstances and this can apply to council offices as well as to cathedrals. But those changes must be sympathetic when dealing with iconic architecture.

I have yet to be convinced that the alterations would do anything but harm this extraordinary building and very much doubt if it has reached the end of its useful life. It looks remarkably robust to me.

By proposing such an unsympathetic remodelling, the council is in danger of persuading national authorities to list the town hall as being of architectural significance.

This would make any major alterations unlikely to succeed and could leave the city council with a grey if not white elephant. There are changes that could and should be made to the town hall so that it can continue to serve as a useful civic building. But destroying its appearance is unacceptable.

Hove Town Hall is often the scene of protests when council meetings are held there. It could soon be where concerned citizens demonstrate to save its structure.

Do you agree with Adam? Or are his views completely different to yours? We want to hear from you. Write to our letters page or email letters@theargus.co.uk