“By submitting two parallel planning applications, Taylor Wimpey is creating a lot of unnecessary confusion,” says Mick Hamer, who chairs the Montpelier and Clifton Hill Association. “If you want to save the Alex you should support the conversion option (BH2010/03379) and object to both the demolition planning application (BH2010/03324) and the associated application for consent to demolish the main building (BH2010/03325).”

The GPs at the Victoria Road surgery have for the last few years claimed that there are no suitable alternative sites for a new surgery. It seems a strange assertion to make – over that time GP surgeries elsewhere in Brighton have successfully relocated to converted premises, for instance a former pub at the bottom of Elm Grove, and a former office block at Preston Park. In our area there are a number of vacant premises which could be converted, including 650 square metres on the ground floor of Crown House, Upper North Street; the former Blockbusters in Western Road; and the ground floor of Princes House, Queens Road. So why is the Primary Care Trust so reluctant to consider alternatives to the Royal Alex? As our editor always says, “It’s not what they’re telling you, it’s what they’re not telling you”.

Taylor Wimpey overpaid for the site, in the belief that they would be able to obtain permission to demolish all the buildings on it. According to the Distinct Valuer the site was worth £5 million for housing in 2007. Taylor Wimpey paid £11.5 million, so the National Health Service pocketed a windfall profit of £6.5 million. The Primary Care Trust has been using a Private Finance Initiative (PFI), Medical Centre Developments, to find new premises for the Montpelier Surgery. In November 2008 Medical Centre Developments signed a lease for a surgery on the Royal Alex site. It appears that to help finance this deal they raised money by taking out a mortgage on a medical centre in Birkenhead with the General Practice Finance Corporation (part of Aviva). The money that Medical Centre Developments paid for this lease has been in the hands of Taylor Wimpey’s solicitors for the past two years. So effectively the money that had been earmarked to find new premises for the Montpelier Surgery has been tied up for two years in the Royal Alex. If Taylor Wimpey can’t get planning permission for a surgery on the site, this money will have to be returned to Medical Centre Developments, with interest. Many in the area supported the well-funded ‘Save Our Surgery’ campaign, probably unaware that rather than being ‘given’ directly to the Montpelier Surgery, the Royal Alex surgery space would be placed into the hands of a privately-owned PFI company.

In surveys the public have consistently shown that they are overwhelmingly in favour of retaining and converting the main building. When Taylor Wimpey carried out a public consultation in August, about 80 per cent of comments favoured keeping the main building and only about 10 per cent were willing to sacrifice the main building for a surgery. The officers of the Clifton Montpelier Powis Community Alliance, the local residents’ association, have consistently repudiated these results, even banning residents from speaking about anything other than ‘the desirability of a GP surgery on the site’ at their public meetings, however, they now accept that a scaled down surgery proposal without a pharmacy in the conversion proposal ‘could be the way forward’.

So if all the parties involved would now agree to compromise, then we might be in sight of a conclusion to this saga. Taylor Wimpey’s S.E. Director David Brown has met representatives of the Montpelier & Clifton Hill Association and The Brighton Society to discuss the conversion scheme, which both societies support. Taylor Wimpey’s efforts to improve the conversion scheme and the fact that they’re persisting with it shows that they recognise the degree of public support there is for conversion. The MCHA is, albeit reluctantly, prepared to accept the demolition of the listable Dyke Road villa in order to save the main building. The Victoria Road surgery GPs say they do not need a pharmacy on the site, and they might now be prepared to drop their extravagant expansion plans and accept a smaller surgery in a new building on the site. With compromise from these groups now on the table it remains to be seen if the final player, Brighton and Hove City Council, would agree to trade off some of the affordable flats for a surgery. If they would then it would be possible to find space for the surgery in the conversion proposal. This could be a compromise that keeps almost everyone happy.

Related posts:

1. Royal Alex Update
2. The Old Market: A Tangle of Conflicting Loyalties and Remits
3. The Old Market: Financial History

Related posts:

1. West Pier Lit Up By Lasers
2. i360 ‘Still On Course’

At the beginning of this year, in a change of tack, Trustees submitted the first of two planning application attempts which sought to build two large glass penthouses on top of the historic Grade II listed Old Market building in Hove. Approval of this plan would have set a dangerous precedent giving carte blanche to anyone to make unusual changes to listed structures just on the basis of ‘needing the money’. The first application was refused and in September the revised application was also refused. Tellingly, planning committee Member, Cllr Paul Steedman, stated that he was not convinced by the claimed financial need.

In the wake of these refusals, a petition seeking grant support from the council is now being introduced before every event by Old Market manager and trustee Stephen Neiman. He explains that the Old Market does not receive any funding from the council, nor from the Arts Council. He readily admits the Trust covers the cost of its operations, but says it is unable to clear its “historic debt”. An electronic petition (lodged on the council’s website) states that the requests for funding “have been met continually by both organisations stating that although they are supportive of the arts and community use of the building, they cannot support a project with such a capital deficit.”

Superficially it appears to be a reasonable request for some financial assistance – but is it all it seems? Prospective signatories are given the impression that neither the Arts Council nor the council have ever donated a penny. Even Delia Forester, ex-Labour councillor and ex-deputy chair of planning, takes as read this supposed lack of public funding in her letter of support for the two glass penthouses.

It is in fact an ungrateful slur on both organisations. In 1999 The National Lottery (through the Arts Council) donated £1 million to the Old Market Trust – at the time, the largest donation to an arts project in the South East. Furthermore the only significant condition was that there would be a clawback should the Old Market be sold within a 10 year timeframe. Those 10 years expired on 11th March 2009 – around the time the Old Market Trustees registered the planning application for the glass penthouses.

In 1998 the Labour administration provided the Old Market Trust with a loan of £275,000, to be repaid in 10 equal instalments. In 2001 that debt was deferred to 2006. Further funding 

came in the form of a £585,000 grant from the 
Single Regeneration Partnership, administered through Brighton & Hove City Council.

The Labour-run administration, in which Delia Forester was a key player, went even further in 2004. Council finance officers Catherine Vaughan and Peter Sargent presented a report to councillors recommending that the loan should be converted to a grant. Their reasoning was that should the Old Market Trust become insolvent Brighton and Hove City Council would be unlikely to retrieve the £275,000, and as they had already distributed the money to the Trust it would “have no additional financial impact on the council”. The report concluded that “The council therefore has no financial gain from pursuing repayment of the loan”. Spurious logic, but the report was approved, and the unpaid debt wiped out.

These actions helped to significantly reduce the “historic debt” to just over £1 million. In 2007, local businessman, Jonathan Bigg, entered into an agreement with the Old Market Trust to take 250-year leases on areas within the Old Market building with the intention of sub-letting them as office space. For this he paid the Trust £1 million, a sum he maintains Stephen Neiman and the Trustees assured him would clear their debt. Having given the money, he then learned that the Trust intended to build two glass penthouses above the areas he had just leased. When he discovered that their motivation behind the glass penthouse plan was again to clear this debt, he was told that his £1 million had made no impact on the debt and that the Trust remained in exactly the same position as before. He asks – quite reasonably – “where has the money gone?”

With stories floating around about late payments to staff it seems at least one person is sitting pretty in all this and that is the Old Market’s artistic director, Ms. Caroline Brown. In 2005 Ms. Brown took home £32,500, and in the following year £35,000. In 2007, supposedly at a time of intense financial pressure due to the Old Market debts, her salary rose sharply to £60,535, coupled with expense claims of £17,500. In fact Ms. Brown’s salary makes up a large chunk of total outgoings on salaries. It is, perhaps, no coincidence that Ms. Caroline Brown is actually Mrs. Caroline Neiman, the wife of Old Market manager and trustee Stephen Neiman.

It seems a shame that the Old Market could close its doors soon – it is undoubtedly a superb and successful venue marred by the seemingly poor financial decisions of its trustees. We invite readers to form their own conclusions.

Related posts:

1. The Old Market: A Tangle of Conflicting Loyalties and Remits
2. Old Market Update
3. Royal Alex Update

But the Regency Society was the leader of the pack, attracting serious expertise to its ruling Committee. In recent years this has come to mean attracting expertise with unattractive agendas. Predatory developers, architects and politicians, looking to serve their own interests by standing for and being elected to positions on the ruling Committee, have increased the danger of a diluted or abandoned conservation remit.

How could the members of the Regency Society have allowed people like that to gain major positions of power on their Committee, neutralising the credibility of The Regency Society as a conservation voice! By next AGM it will just be an asset-rich club, protecting and advancing the careers of architects, politicians and developers.

For most Regency Society members (other groups work in a similar fashion), membership has been all about the tea and biscuits, the wine and chamber music in the Royal Pavilion at AGM, the garden party, the lectures, the coach trips and the £60 dinners. There is little interest or involvement with boring old planning.

For the committed conservationist, however, membership has been about protecting heritage, Grades 1 and 2 Listed buildings, the Regency era Brunswick Townscape (mostly listed buildings) and the cultural story of this nation along the thread of time. Architecture is certainly High Art to the Starchitects of our time and for me, these areas of listed buildings merit the term “Artscape”.
“My turn! My turn!” the Horribles shrill, bug-eyed, teeth bared, fame and wealth on their minds. They want these buildings “euthanized” and see ambitions thwarted by their taking up space THEY could be using. “Get off the stage! My turn! My turn!” And the cultural markers that tell the visitor what country they are in, what town, city or village they are in are just so-much “brown field site” to them.

In recent years leading members of the various conservation-agenda groups have “intermarried” so to speak. They have propped up each other’s dwindling memberships by joining each other’s groups. They have aged and died. They have not been replaced with new members possessed of their deep respect, wish to learn and understandings of history and heritage, their educational strengths and grit in defending the riches of heritage this country so proudly shows off to the tourism trade. The dwindling numbers of them desperately prop up each other’s conservation remits and become haunted by the dilution and marginalisation of conservation. Social memberships and the brazen infiltration by predators for whom conservation is optional has bred deep despair. And a lot of empty hand-wringing.

At the time of the Old Market’s February planning application to put 2 glass box penthouses on the roof of the Grade 2 Listed Old Market, the convenor of the Regency Society’s planning group was former Labour councillor, Delia Forester, a woman who used her position on the planning committee on March 23rd, 2007 to provide fulsome support for the Frank Gehry colossus on Hove seafront. She led the majority Labour Party vote which gave it planning permission.

How did someone like that become convenor of the planning group at the Regency Society? A weak constitution helped allow it. The supine, tea & biscuits credulous membership voted her (and others) onto the ruling committee and thence to the planning group, the credibility of the Regency Society being of no concern to them.
How was it right that the Chair of the Regency Society was also an Old Market Trustee? How is it right that the Treasurer of the Regency Society, Stephen Neiman, is also the Old Market Trustee raising this glass boxes planning application? Should he not have resigned from the Regency Society to do that? Entanglements and loyalties so deep that you can barely see the join have meant that the move by the Old Market Trust to put big glass boxes on its Grade 2 Listed roof compromised the Regency Society’s conservation remit. Or did it?

Ahead of the 2009 Regency Society AGM, and using her Brighton University email account instead of Regency Society letterhead , Delia Forester, convenor of the Regency Society planning group, Labour politician & architect, registered fulsome planning consultation support on behalf of the Regency Society. Nervous breakdowns, angst and hysteria ensued when this became known. Loyalty to Stephen Neiman, however, led to old stagers staying their hands and not objecting as they would otherwise have done and then getting in a state about it. Remit vs. Loyalty to a close & valued colleague and mate.

Why did she (with others in commanding positions in The Regency Society) do all this? Why not start their own group? Why destroy the Regency Society’s remit and credibility? How was it even possible to do so? Putting on a military hat, I would say that taking out the leader is the best way to topple the rest. And so it came to pass.
Over at the Hove Civic Society, conflicts of loyalty, angst, rage and shattered alliances tested their commitment to conservation to its limit. One of its two members on the Council’s Conservation Advisory Group resigned over this one application. The Hove Civic prevaricated, vascillated, hung back but finally moved to a position of objection – but with blood on the floor.

This story was repeated all over the shop.

At the Regency Society AGM, regime change led to the new Chairman withdrawing Forester’s Regency Society response to the Old Market application for the two glass penthouses, declaring to the Council that because the Society was divided, there would be no response. No response to an application affecting a listed Regency building in a massively listed Regency townscape. The infiltrators had done their job and taken out the conservation movement’s leader group.

Embarrassed and mortified, torn between hurting Old Market Trustee and applicant, Stephen Neiman, or hurting the listed building, the amenity groups were like chickens trapped in the coop with a fox. Only the 11th hour intervention of the London-based Georgian Group sobered everyone up.

The Old Market is saved from glass boxes for the moment. But now the time for reckoning has come. And it is clear that the Regency Society membership will not make the effort to defend the conservation remit by learning anything other than who will be playing what at the next AGM chamber concert. It is clear too that, unlike the Brighton Society, which allows anyone to be a member, but bars politicians, developers and architects from Committee membership, the Regency Society has failed to write a Constitution which protects itself from destruction of its remit & respectable purpose.

Related posts:

1. The Old Market: Financial History
2. Royal Alex Update
3. Royal Alex Site Update

During these meetings, Jo Thompson & Gill Thompson (no relation), made clear that the rejected option of complete demolition was not on the table, and that any planning application would have to involve retention and conversion of at least the main Royal Alex building. Also the green space in front of it must be preserved.
A poorly publicised exhibition was then held at Hove Town Hall during the last week of October. On display were five options, ranging from retention and conversion of all the buildings on the site, to complete demolition and redevelopment. There was no indication that the latter option was out of the question, and just included for ‘control’ purposes.

Only financial considerations were taken into account, although the District Valuer had not completed his assessment by the time of the exhibition. The exhibition appeared to be biased against the conversion option – complete demolition was the only option showing not so much a profit as a smaller loss. This is largely due to the Council in effect continuing to tax profit that does not exist, by requiring the provision of 40% affordable housing.  Coincidentally, the day before this exhibition started, there was a conference on land economics and valuation at UCL, which was attended by many of the best brains in the country. The conference unanimously concluded that the economic model that aims to build ‘social housing’ using the super-profit from development is for the time being dead; it was rather aptly referred to as ‘bubble economics’, and it was firmly stated that the bubble would not be around for the foreseeable future.

Local architect Mr. Graham Towers, who has more than 30 years professional experience of urban housing design and development, has found that the Royal Alex exhibition was incorrect regarding the numbers of flats which could be achieved in the different options. His calculations, based on a detailed and realistic comparison with the Taylor Wimpey planning application, show that more flats could be achieved in a conversion scheme than claimed in the exhibition, and fewer flats created in a new-build scheme.

The exhibition also did not take into account the fact that the large roof space in the existing building could be utilised for additional flats, as has been pointed out to Jo & Gill Thompson by Mick Hamer, who coordinated the MCHA case at the public inquiry in June.

Discussion of the planning brief for this site is pencilled in for the environment cabinet of 17 December. The MCHA is pressing for discussion of the brief to be deferred until the meeting of 26 January to allow time for a proper feasibility study by a qualified and experienced conservation architect, and to allow time for all stages of the public consultation to be completed. Otherwise there is the risk of yet more doomed planning applications followed by another time consuming and costly appeal. This is unfair on the community and also unfair on the developers, who need a clear and unambiguous brief this time.

Related posts:

1. Royal Alex Site Update
2. The Old Market: A Tangle of Conflicting Loyalties and Remits
3. The Old Market: Financial History

At the beginning of September a local citizen, Bill Impey, started a petition against the potential loss of the views of our white cliffs, the downland coming down to the sea and the settings of the Listed Regency buildings, should these towers be built. He, and a small group, stood on the pavement collecting signatures from passers-by, both locals and tourist with amazing results. Petition forms were emailed out to a network and REGENCY magazine delivered them in relevant places.

In less than a month many thousands of signatures have been collected and the word spread across the country – even to the USA from where a former resident airmailed a petition form.  Forms were posted in from all over the country. We honestly didn’t expect such an overwhelming response.

Several delegates from the Labour Party Conference signed and were amazed that this development had ever been allowed to go forward.  They obviously preferred our lovely seafront on a warm sunny lunchtime to the Conference Centre.

All the forms have now been sent to the Inspectorate to meet their deadline and I would like to thank everyone who helped make this important Petition so successful.  We hope it will make a difference.  Our views are our heritage.

Stella McCrickard

Lewes Crescent

Related posts:

1. Letters: Developments On The Marina
2. Developer Fined £30,000
3. Letters: National Readerships

These tacky and meretricious developments, the one resembling a bog-standard pin and the other a rolled-up condom minus the teat, do not even have the merit of being aesthetic.  They do not even begin to approximate Portsmouth’s Spinnaker Tower for looks.

In passing, I should like to wish Stella McCrickard of www.savebrighton.com the best in her fight to conserve our chalk cliffs at the Marina from the commercial intents of Explore Living.

Dr. Yen-Chung Chong

Ship Street, Brighton

Related posts:

1. Developments On The Seafront
2. Letters: Developments On The Marina
3. Letters: Citizen Power Over Marina Appeal

Brighton and Hove Council Leader Mary Mears

As we approach the end of the year our editor, Tony Davenport, went to meet the Leader of Brighton & Hove City Council, Councillor Mary Mears for a chin-wag about our city, over a nice cup of coffee.

TD: You’re a genuine local aren’t you?

MM: Well, I was born and bred in Brighton and throughout my life have worked extensively in the city, mostly in my family business, which is greengrocery. My father had a market stall after he left the army, and everything has built up from that. I’ve raised my family here too – I have one son and two grandsons.

TD: How did you get involved with local politics?

MM: I’m very opinionated when it comes to what I feel strongly about, and friends said I should either put myself up for election or shut up, and so I did the former! The first time I stood for Marine Ward in the old Brighton council, but lost by 200 votes. Next time around I was offered a safer seat, but I wanted more of a challenge as I was sure I could do it, so stood again for the more challenging Marine Ward and won! It gave me a good background because this former ward included Roedean, the Marina, Sussex Square, Lewes Crescent, and Whitehawk – a very diverse ward and I found it really interesting and challenging, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

TD: What would you say is your primary interest in the council?

MM: My real passion in politics is housing – if you get that right, everything follows, from children in the school environment to adult social care – it’s really fundamental for people’s wellbeing. I always took a real interest and worked on this, so when the Conservatives came took control last year I became Chair of Housing and when I became Leader of the Council I took this interest in strategic housing with me. 

As I said, if you get housing right, you have taken the first step and my ambition is to ensure we really get to grips with it. The council has nearly 13,000 properties around the city and there was a bad situation between tenants, council officers, and council members, where tenants didn’t talk to the officers. We’ve set up focus groups to mend bridges and get people talking, a crucial piece of work, so tenants then started coming to the council and working with the officers and I’m delighted that last Friday the tenants held an inaugural city-wide assembly. We’re also putting together a way of trying to fund decent housing and although the tenants said no to transferring council housing to a housing association,the council still has to meet central Government guidelines on housing, and  there’s a massive gap between the target and the present situation.  We are therefore setting up a company to lease properties and we will then borrow money on the rental income, with the money going back into the housing account and we are hoping to go ‘live’ on that in April. We have an excellent Cabinet member on housing in Maria Caulfield, but I always like to keep an eye on what is going on. Our council stock is not meeting decent home standards and it will be a massive achievement if we can get that right.

TD: People often see Brighton and Hove as our own little world, but as you have already mentioned you are quite dependent on central Government for funding, aren’t you?

MM: Generally, yes. There are limitations due to government guidelines, and a wide range of performance indicators we have to meet. Our council’s funding settlement from central Government is one of the lowest in the country and so against these limited resources there are enormous pressures. For instance the Government wants to see a large growth in housing in this area but currently we do not have the resources for what they would like.

TD: And no money in Icelandic banks I trust?

MM: No! We have excellent finance officers who are incredibly diligent. We did have money in an Icelandic bank but they removed it some time ago but some of our colleagues in other councils got very badly burnt.

TD: I have my ear to the ground, and gather you have been doing lots of things involving local businesses. Can you tell us about that?

MM: Yes, local businesses are one of the ways in which Brighton and Hove is quite unique  as we have so many small independent traders. I think it makes us what we are and if we lose that, Brighton and Hove could be any high street in the country – just multinationals. With this financial downturn it’s important for the council to do as much as possible to support small businesses. 

We’ve introduced a range of measures, including a commitment to paying invoices to small businesses within ten days. We’re also looking at business rates and spreading the payments over 12 months instead of 10. We’re trying to look at businesses on a one by one basis and coming up with solutions such as taking rents one month in advance instead of three. From 5th December we are also stopping town centre roadworks and we’re delighted that Southern Water and gas companies have signed up to this initiative, for twelve days over the Christmas period, to encourage people to come to the city. We’re holding meetings with traders and hoteliers, so we are actually listening to what they are saying and working with them. One of the first things we did when we came into power was to set up a meeting with small traders and we’re also meeting with London Road businesses to discuss the problems of street drinking.

TD: It’s interesting that you mention these various consultations. As a resident I always felt that under the last administration consultation was considered a tedious exercise to be conducted and then ignored, rather than a meaningful dialogue. Are you saying your administration is different?

MM: Absolutely. I don’t believe in a top-down approach. My colleagues and I want an open and transparent administration. There’s really no point listening if we don’t take on board what people tell us.

TD: I gather you now have an online  webcasting system?

MM: Yes, it’s all quite new. We webcast full council, cabinet and planning meetings so people can watch live via our website and residents can also look at the archive of previous meetings. It’s one of the many ways in which we are trying to interact with residents because we are elected by them and spending their money so it’s very important that they get a feeling for what the council is doing. It’s all part of our commitment to open and honest engagement with the public.

TD: The King Alfred is a hot topic at the moment. I’ve been reading that a couple of Labour councillors are criticising the council for not taking the “Plan B” approach with regard to the project. Why didn’t you?

MM: As an administration we’ve been restricted on what we can discuss for legal reasons, but that restriction ended on 9th November when the agreement fell through. I can tell you now that what people have read in the papers is wrong. There was no “Plan B” provided by Karis Developments.

TD: So what will happen now?

MM: In the short term we are putting money into the King Alfred, not closing it. There’s remedial work now and it’s ongoing because sadly nothing has been spent on it since 1975. Longer term we’re looking at possibilities on the site and though the original brief was very clear about providing leisure facilities for the city, it grew into an enormous development with housing as well and we want to take it back to the original brief of providing great leisure facilities.

TD: Tall towers themselves are rather contentious to many people – what are your views on them along the seafront?

MM: It would be wrong to say ‘yes’ to all, or ‘no’ to all, so we need to take each case on its own merits and to be very clear when passing planning permission as we’ve got a fantastic coastline and have to remember that. We don’t want developers to think it’s a closed door here but on the other hand we don’t just want developments which ‘will do’ – they have to be really fantastic because after all we have to think not only about now, but the future. If you look at the city, some conservation area buildings were put up a hundred years ago and others were put up recently – ask yourself, which ones will still look good in the future? Brighton and Hove is a very special place – new developments must always reflect that.

TD: What do you have planned for next year?

MM: It’s going to be an interesting year as we’ve got no knowledge of just how long the downturn will last, but we have a very clear direction for this council. We want to see core basic services delivered because although people are struggling and losing jobs they still have to pay council tax. So we have to ensure we deliver high quality, value for money services. We inherited a vast number of major projects around the city, and we’re now looking carefully at each one. The top priority is the Brighton Centre which is crucial to the economy of the city, tourism, and conferences. It’s vital that it is redeveloped as this will have a major knock-on effect on jobs, so we are working hard on this at the moment. We’re also looking at the other projects realistically to see if they’re viable and if we can deliver. This policy is ongoing as we think it is important to look at each one with fresh eyes. We’re also doing lots with the voluntary sector and we have created a new cabinet portfolio specially for Communities and the Voluntary Sector. Councillor Dee Simson is working in this role to ensure we are not duplicating efforts and can get the best results for our city.

Editor’s footnote

I went into this interview with an open mind and I must say that I was impressed with what I heard. Mary is open and friendly and obviously loves this city where she was born. Let’s hope that she will be able to deliver for the residents and businesses in the next few years.

Related posts:

1. Brighton & Hove’s
 New Broom?
2. Council To Deliver Lowest Tax Increase
3. Council Chief ‘Retires’

Related posts:

1. Blogger Off