Yet again Brighton & HOve have conned us..

[Nibble]

It's f***ing OUTRAGEOUS! The developement at New England Rd (behind station). Before work began we were promised an amazing re-developement that would transform the area, with lovely housing. What do we get conned with?... A massive Sainsburys, a monolithic Jury's Inn () cheap hotel and chavvy bar.

Plus a smattering of cheaply built massively overpriced flats that Londoners will buy up again forcing people with average incomes off the property ladder.

The place is already becomiong run down. The area outside Sainsburys is getting covered in graffitti and because it is well lit at night and open late gangs of chav teenagers runnig around shouting and making life unbearable for residents. In ten years it is going to be a proper no-go area.

Why did the council not invest some of OUR taxes in a state of the art Sports complex with pools, ice rinks, climbing walls, tennis/squash/badminton courts, gyms, cafes, restaurants?? WHY

Regeneration? Crock of shit. The land was just sold to the highest bidder and once more Brighton inches toward becoming unaffordable, mediocre, poorly maintained shithole.

Lied to AGAIN. Cheated AGAIN. Conned AGAIN. Makes my blood boil.

 

[Titanic]

Happy Christmas, Nibble.

 

[keaton]

The new Sainsbury's is well good, and there's gonna be an Aldi where the old one was, it's gonna be brillaint for shopping.

 

[Franks Wild Years]

Its the same down here in bristol Nibble. Dockside regeneration which is made up of Marks and Spencers, Ibis Hotel and a Casino plus loads of lazily designed overpriced matchbox flats.
It sucks.

 

[Nibble]

The new Sainsbury's is well good, and there's gonna be an Aldi where the old one was, it's gonna be brillaint for shopping.

Hooray! Its a shop.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Why did the council not invest some of OUR taxes in a state of the art Sports complex with pools, ice rinks, climbing walls, tennis/squash/badminton courts, gyms, cafes, restaurants?? WHY?

I think you'll find that these sorts of facilities are NEVER paid for by Councils. Where they appear, they are paid for by the developers.

Presumably, in this case, the developers decided that they would make more profit out of a supermarket and a hotel. They were probably right.

 

[Titanic]

I think you'll find that these sorts of facilities are NEVER paid for by Councils. Where they appear, they are paid for by the developers.

Presumably, in this case, the developers decided that they would make more profit out of a supermarket and a hotel. They were probably right.

They are not paid for by councils - but they should be DEMANDED through S106 funded projects as part of such development. I bet the council did get loads of S106 cash - but have spent it elsewhere.

 

[Nibble]

I think you'll find that these sorts of facilities are NEVER paid for by Councils. Where they appear, they are paid for by the developers.

Presumably, in this case, the developers decided that they would make more profit out of a supermarket and a hotel. They were probably right.

Well of course they are going to make more profit but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Meade's Ball]

I went to primary school there and when visiting Brighton the other week did find it proper shit, but it's no surprise when city centres rid themselves of character for the benefit of colourless profits.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

They are not paid for by councils - but they should be DEMANDED through S106 funded projects as part of such development. I bet the council did get loads of S106 cash - but have spent it elsewhere.

The negotiations with potential developers of the old railway land next to Brighton Station went on for YEARS. I was involved in some of those meetings, back in the 1980s.

A string of developers pulled out, once they'd done the sums. The land values were so high that only a high value project was ever going to happen. Demands for 'free' projects for public benefit, paid for out of S106 money, simply got the developers walking away.

 

[Titanic]

The land is only worth money if a scheme can be accepted by the council... it is clearly the councils responsibility to ensure the citizens benefit as well as the fat cats. They failed. Quelle surprise.

 

[Nibble]

The negotiations with potential developers of the old railway land next to Brighton Station went on for YEARS. I was involved in some of those meetings, back in the 1980s.

A string of developers pulled out, once they'd done the sums. The land values were so high that only a high value project was ever going to happen. Demands for 'free' projects for public benefit, paid for out of S106 money, simply got the developers walking away.

Understood but the end result is we get conned and the residents of Brighton lose out.

 

[The Large One]

Understood but the end result is we get conned and the residents of Brighton lose out.

Conned out of what? Were you told we were getting sports facilities?

All I knew was that there was going to be new housing (ALL new housing in Brighton attracts 'London-types' - there's nothing anyone can do about that), a new supermarket, a new college, and a desparately much-needed new hotel.

All that's missing is the 42-storey tower which is not now going to happen.

 

[Nibble]

I use conned as a general expression of how Brighton has the opportunity to use land and resources to make the quality of life better for residents instead it uses them to the advantage of Sainsburys.

And Brighton does not need another hotel.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The land is only worth money if a scheme can be accepted by the council... it is clearly the councils responsibility to ensure the citizens benefit as well as the fat cats. They failed. Quelle surprise.

The problem was that "the citizens" were also represented by the landowner - the British Railways Property Board (who are nothing to do with the railway, by the way - they are a nationalised agency of government, responsible for landholdings that are not required for railway operations). The Property Board were under instructions from the government to get the maximum value out of the land, for the benefit of the taxpayers (ie "the citizens"). Doing nothing delivered a very good return for years - since the book value of the land kept rising astronomically.

The best the council could do was to put pressure on the big players in the game to make some sort of decision - otherwise the place would have remained derelict for even more years than it did.

 

[Nibble]

It is a massive wasted opportunity but no surprise that we lose out while massive corporations and government landowners reap the rewards.

 

[Brovion]

The problem was that "the citizens" were also represented by the landowner - the British Railways Property Board (who are nothing to do with the railway, by the way - they are a nationalised agency of government, responsible for landholdings that are not required for railway operations). The Property Board were under instructions from the government to get the maximum value out of the land, for the benefit of the taxpayers (ie "the citizens"). Doing nothing delivered a very good return for years - since the book value of the land kept rising astronomically.

The best the council could do was to put pressure on the big players in the game to make some sort of decision - otherwise the place would have remained derelict for even more years than it did.

Correct, and at leat something has now been built and it's not THAT bad. Ditto the Library and the other developments (more shops!) on the old Jubilee site.

Given the conservative and reactionary nature of most Brighton citizens when faced with development I'm amazed the whole city isn't a decaying slum. Let's hope the Black Rock development goes through.

 

[Nibble]

Correct, and at leat something has now been built and it's not THAT bad. Ditto the Library and the other developments (more shops!) on the old Jubilee site.

Given the conservative and reactionary nature of most Brighton citizens when faced with development I'm amazed the whole city isn't a decaying slum. Let's hope the Black Rock development goes through.

Not THAT Bad? It is f***ing awful and it will continue to get worse.

 

[fatbadger]

This isn't a problem relating to Brighton & Hove - this is a problem relating to 'regeneration'.

I dare say there are towns and cities up and down the country with plenty of people who will say the same. Glasgow, for example, is atrocious in these respects. The city council bends over backwards for any rich bastard who promises to build yet more poncey flats or another retail park, but fails to 'regenerate' community facilities or low-cost and social housing. One particularly bad recent example is Silverburn (which recently won a prize for 'Worst Planning Decision of the Year in Scotland'). Essentially, the main community shopping area for the whole of the south side of Glasgow (an area of serious deprivation) and a school have been pulled down and replaced by a shopping mall containing expensive shops and a Tesco. Silverburn's website is quite clear on who they wish to see coming to the centre - those who live in gentrified Giffnock and Newton Mearns (ie Glasgow's Toryville). Sod the locals (although presumably they can have jobs cleaning the place, or something - that's the 'regeneration' bit). Meanwhile, locals on low income now have to waste money on buses or trains to get to the kinds of shops they used to be able to walk to. The Commonwealth Games project is, perhaps, even worse - prefectly acceptable housing in need of some care and attention is to be pulled down and replaced with an athletes' village which will be sold off to yuppies after the games have finished; and, of course, all of the new sports facilities will be carefully policed and expensive to use (it's all in the business plan - and only the incoming yuppies will be able to afford to use them). This, of course, is all being done with funds reallocated from the budgets which support genuine community sports and leisure facilities.

 

[Brovion]

Not THAT Bad? It is f***ing awful and it will continue to get worse.

I think that's a matter of opinion. I'll grant you that it's not an awe-inspiring, jaw-droppingly marvelous development that will win awards for the next 20 years, but it is fulfulling some needs in a manner that is not 100% offensive. It's infinitely better than what used to be there. Again, just my aesthetic opinion, you may have preferred the wasteland, fair enough.

Certainly I didn't want to wait another 40 years for the 100% ideal development to come along.