Amex hotel proposal will be decided at BHCC Planning Committee 17th February

[Bold Seagull]

Does that mean it is run privately for the NHS or is it a private facility?

I don't think they confirmed either way who would run it. Often with these type of facilities annexed within a separate development, until you get planning permission and the project is 'real', then you won't have a contractual health care provider at pre-planning stage.

It may well be that they have options lined up, but I don't think that means it definitely won't be the NHS.

 

[atomised]

If they didn't like the hotel proposal, they'll HATE the casino proposal

Not to mention the 15000 capacity arena in the opposite field

 

[Thunder Bolt]

http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/...t-brighton-and-hove-albion-hotel-scheme/45143

Planners have thrown out a hotel scheme put forward by Brighton and Hove Albion in the grounds of the American Express Community Stadium in Falmer.

One councillor dismissed the design as “mediocre” when the plans went before the Brighton and Hove City Council Planning Committee at Portslade Town hall today (Wednesday 17 February).

The decision was made on the casting vote of Councillor Julie Cattell, who chairs the Planning Committee.

It followed an application by Albion Sports and Leisure, a subsidiary of the football club, to build a hotel with 150 bedrooms. The scheme included a restaurant, bar, gym, meeting room, lounge, garden area, 62 car parking spaces and a cancer treatment centre.

Albion Sports and Leisure director Martin Perry, who stood for Labour in the local elections last May, said: “The whole of the basement will be a cancer treatment centre. It is likely the treatment centre will be private, although publicly funded.”

Mr Perry, the former chief executive of the football club and the man credited with creating the Amex Stadium, said: “The site is very constrained. It is a triangle constrained by the football stadium, the railway and the (Bennett’s Field) car park. We do not own that car park. We have considered the objections.”

A report recommended that councillors refuse planning permission because of the design, closeness to the stadium (14 metres) and the inappropriate architectural impact on Stanmer Park.

Councillor Maggie Barradell a Labour member ,said: “The design is mediocre … This has not been a good application.”

Councillor Adrian Morris, a fellow Labour member, said: “There are huge economic benefits. The Albion do a lot for the city but we cannot treat them any differently.

“I have to agree with the officer’s recommendation about design. We need the development but it is what standard of design that we need to achieve.

“The loss of 156 car parking spaces is a big issue. There could have been a softer design. I am sure the applicant will come back with something better.”

Another Labour councillor Jackie O’Quinn said: “I do find the building very stark, very utilitarian. It does not fit in with the stadium. I think it is a great pity the applicant did not soften the plans. It is a great idea to have a hotel there but it does have to be of quality.”

Councillor Pete West raised environmental concerns. He said: “We do have a stadium and it does have architectural merit. The visual impact is important and the national park that surrounds this site.

“Stanmer Park does have views of the site. Stanmer Park is listed. We must not overlook this. The game has been raised since Stanmer Park has been set up. A hotel is not inappropriate in itself and the Amex is a huge success. But we do not need to compromise on the design.”

Speaking in support of the development Councillor Carol Theobald, a Conservative, said: “The Marriott has a very good name and the building has a nice curve. I regret the loss of car parking. 156 spaces is rather a lot. I do see there are only two objections.

“There will be 82 jobs which is a benefit to local jobs and the local economy, football players who do come to the Amex stadium and even parents of students.”

Councillor Cattell said: “I don’t think the design is like the Amex which is spectacular. We need to separate the design from the applicant. I don’t like the message this sends out to other developers that designs that are mediocre are ok.”

Mr Perry said: “Which is better, a hotel or tarmac?”

Given the no vote, the committee appears to believe that the tarmac is more appealing for now.

 

[Postman Pat]

A report recommended that councillors refuse planning permission because of the design, closeness to the stadium (14 metres) and the inappropriate architectural impact on Stanmer Park.

“Stanmer Park does have views of the site. Stanmer Park is listed. We must not overlook this. The game has been raised since Stanmer Park has been set up.

What does this mean - "Since Stanmer Park has been set up"? Since 1722 or 1947.... I don't think the Green's can take responsibility for the creation of Stanmer Park.

I'm still not convinced there is a view of the stadium from Stanmer Park (let alone the hotel), unless it's from the top of the hill.....which has a fooking great dual carriage way in front of it, which may just spoil the view already.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Tarmac rules

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Falmer councillor on Radio Sussex was shocked at the decision to turn it down.

https://audioboom.com/boos/4197390-...ward-councillor-for-falmer-about-the-decision

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/...t-brighton-and-hove-albion-hotel-scheme/45143

Mr Perry said: “Which is better, a hotel or tarmac?”

Given the no vote, the committee appears to believe that the tarmac is more appealing for now.

I don't think MP did himself any favours with that quote, just smacks of arrogance and a sense of entitlement. Probably assumed the planning committee wouldn't dare turn down a proposal with the serious sweetener of a cancer unit tagged on.

Just go away Martin, do your homework and come back with a more aesthetically-pleasing design. That's all they seems to be asking for, and its something you should maybe have anticipated. Schoolboy error by the boy Perry. IMHO, like.

 

[Carrot Cruncher]

Whilst I think the plans are dull, the decision does smack of hypocrisy as the same committee approved the heinously boring King Alfred development.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I don't think MP did himself any favours with that quote, just smacks of arrogance and a sense of entitlement. Probably assumed the planning committee wouldn't dare turn down a proposal with the serious sweetener of a cancer unit tagged on.

Just go away Martin, do your homework and come back with a more aesthetically-pleasing design. That's all they seems to be asking for, and its something you should maybe have anticipated. Schoolboy error by the boy Perry. IMHO, like.

This

 

[Greavsey]

Whilst I think the plans are dull, the decision does smack of hypocrisy as the same committee approved the heinously boring King Alfred development.

THIS.

I think they also have to be realistic about the design of the building, and the relative cost associated with construction in making it a viable prospect. If you look at any other motorway Premier Inn, Travel Lodge, Ibis type hotel they are of a similar design or have a twee mock country house look to them - very much function over form. So I imagine the architects employed to design worked off the premise that the post modern blocky look would have been the lesser of two evils when placed in alongside the stadium..

 

[Bold Seagull]

Whilst I think the plans are dull, the decision does smack of hypocrisy as the same committee approved the heinously boring King Alfred development.

It hasn't got planning permission yet - all that's happened is a preferred developer has been selected.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Whilst I think the plans are dull, the decision does smack of hypocrisy as the same committee approved the heinously boring King Alfred development.

I think this still has to got through the full planning process, so there is a chance that it could still be turned down. If the committee applied the same criteria as yesterday they flipping well should do!

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

THIS.

I think they also have to be realistic about the design of the building, and the relative cost associated with construction in making it a viable prospect. If you look at any other motorway Premier Inn, Travel Lodge, Ibis type hotel they are of a similar design or have a twee mock country house look to them - very much function over form. So I imagine the architects employed to design worked off the premise that the post modern blocky look would have been the lesser of two evils when placed in alongside the stadium..

Seriously, how much more would it have cost to put a few wavy lines on the frontage and a bit of greenery on the roof? All that sort of stuff that was deemed infinitely important during the design and planning application process for the Amex. Remember that? It was only a few short years ago. Applicants for the hotel were IMHO far too complacent and will even as we speak be conducting a 'Lessons Learned' exercise, complete with flip-boards and marker pens. My cynical evil other self can envisage them coming back with an improved costlier design and with the cancer unit dropped, seeing as how it never swung it for them in the original application.

 

[Curious Orange]

Seriously, how much more would it have cost to put a few wavy lines on the frontage and a bit of greenery on the roof? All that sort of stuff that was deemed infinitely important during the design and planning application process for the Amex. Remember that? It was only a few short years ago. Applicants for the hotel were IMHO far too complacent and will even as we speak be conducting a 'Lessons Learned' exercise, complete with flip-boards and marker pens. My cynical evil other self can envisage them coming back with an improved costlier design and with the cancer unit dropped, seeing as how it never swung it for them in the original application.

Wasn't the whole point about the cancer unit actually that the club want their own MRI machine for early analysis of player injuries, and that making it available to a cancer unit would actually mean it is used more regularly?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Wasn't the whole point about the cancer unit actually that the club want their own MRI machine for early analysis of player injuries, and that making it available to a cancer unit would actually mean it is used more regularly?

Doubt it somehow.

Seems to me the 'cancer unit' aspect of the planning application deserves a thread of its own where it can be properly analysed in it's own right.

 

[Knotty]

Bankers

Doubt it somehow.

Seems to me the 'cancer unit' aspect of the planning application deserves a thread of its own where it can be properly analysed in it's own right.

You doubt it because you have knowledge of the facts to justify your doubts? Or you doubt it simply because you want to?

And you want another thread to debate it so you can continue to criticise the club? Are you in possession of all the facts to 'analyse' it?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Wasn't the whole point about the cancer unit actually that the club want their own MRI machine for early analysis of player injuries, and that making it available to a cancer unit would actually mean it is used more regularly?

That's what I understood.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

You doubt it because you have knowledge of the facts to justify your doubts? Or you doubt it simply because you want to?

And you want another thread to debate it do you can continue to criticise the club? Are you in possession of all the facts to 'analyse' it?

It's got nothing to do with criticising the club, other than that in this instance they happen to be the applicant. Face it. If the applicant had a genuine burning desire to build a cancer unit for the city, they could have done it anywhere within the city limits and it would have doubtless have been welcomed with open arms. They still could and it still would. Don't need to be in possession of many 'facts' to be able to deduce that the cancer unit was added to the hotel application purely and simply as a sweetener, same as any application to build a block of flats will contain a couple that are deemed 'affordable'. The clear inference being that if the planning committee turn down the hotel then they also turn down the cancer unit. Please feel free to suggest otherwise.

 

[Curious Orange]

Doubt it somehow.

Seems to me the 'cancer unit' aspect of the planning application deserves a thread of its own where it can be properly analysed in it's own right.

Which bit do you doubt? That the club want an MRI unit? Or that they'd want another way to help cover the costs of running it?

 

[El Presidente]

I think the council WOULD like a hotel as the economic benefits in the form of increased employment, rates, tourism footfall and so on.

I think the club WOULD like a hotel because the profits will help offset the losses made on the pitch.

B&H Council has a new chief executive, he should ask the planning officer and someone from the club to a meeting, lock the door, and only allow them out once they've agreed on the design and cost.

As for the S.106, if it is that much of an issue, let's have a bucket collection at the Leeds match. £2 from every Albion fan there will pay the £45,000 that the council seem to want as a sweetener to approve the application.