The public meeting between the developer of the former Royal Alexandra Children's Hospital site and residents, referred to in your article (The Argus, May 27), a key issue was glossed over.
The developer, Taylor Wimpey, refuses to consider preservation of this Victorian landmark building despite its key location in an im portant conservation area on the grounds of its not being, as you state, "financially viable". By this it means the profits from their conversion will not be large enough.
Individuals who live in conservation areas have to observe exacting rules and regulations for the upkeep and repair of their houses. All residents in the area benefit accordingly from maintaining these standards.
Should it be different for a speculative builder? How are we to understand the meaning of a conservation area if the council allows demolition rather than conservation where corporate profits are concerned?
- Carol Dyhouse and Nick von Tunzelmann, Victoria Road, Brighton
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article