Yet again Brighton & HOve have conned us..

[CHAPPERS]

And you still haven't answered the question - what, sensibly, would you want on the station site?

A f***ing WATER PARK YOU STUPID BEARD GOON.

 

[Nibble]

Jesus, not that you're trying to prove my point. And it has been established that you are not particularly good at debating...

Talk about accusing someone of throwing stones while living in a glasshouse.

I never lost any ground on this debate (were we supposed to be point-scoring?) - in fact, that's quite a silly thing to say, but not surprising form you considering your attitude to people who disagree with you. I put across an alternative point of view to you believing we've all been conned. You just didn't like it and decided to assign me a set of values (I'm short-sighted, I can't see the bigger picture) for which you had no basis, and had nothing to do with the debate. You were wrong to do so.

I was wrong to call you - ironically, though you either missed the irony, or you deliberately didn't want to see it - a little wanker.

You the proceeded to call me a coward - twice. And don't even think of saying that was ironic. And you don't resort to name-calling?

And you still haven't answered the question - what, sensibly, would you want on the station site?

Firstly I didn't see the irony because it isn't irony. How can calling someone a wanker be ironic unless you yourself are a wanker?

I don't have an attitude towards people who disagree with me and anyone who actually looks at the debates I have had in the past will see that when I get wound up it is usually because people deliberatly goad because they know I bite, it is rarely anything to do with whether we agree or not. Even I laugh at myself for that.

However, I think the site should have been used for perhaps, as I have said a venue or sports facility. Perhaps a small park could have been landscaped there (though I realise that would probably have been populated by drunks fairly quickly!)

Maybe a decent science museum that could have been used for educational purposes combining the tourist element and the benefit to residents. Maybe even an ecological centre for education and research.

There are a plethora of much more socially beneficial projects that could have been given room on the site and those are just the ones I have thought of now.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Firstly I didn't see the irony because it isn't irony. How can calling someone a wanker be ironic unless you yourself are a wanker?

TLO has been owned.

 

[Nibble]

f*** me, are you HB&B, with your holier than thou attitude to Brighton? Tell us, oh great understander of weighty issues, abuser and non-listener of alternative points of view, and paragon of all things central Brighton, what should become of the Station site? After all...

...WE'VE ALL BEEN CONNED.



Oh, please.

Now that's ironic.

 

[The Large One]

However, I think the site should have been used for perhaps, as I have said a venue or sports facility. Perhaps a small park could have been landscaped there (though I realise that would probably have been populated by drunks fairly quickly!)

Maybe a decent science museum that could have been used for educational purposes combining the tourist element and the benefit to residents. Maybe even an ecological centre for education and research.

There are a plethora of much more socially beneficial projects that could have been given room on the site and those are just the ones I have thought of now.

OK, a science museum. Not a bad idea. We already have one, but OK.

But, more pertinently - if the station site is not to be used for housing, supermarkets or hotels, how would you accommodate Brighton's housing shortage, hotel-spaces shortage and lack of supermarkets with car-parking facilities in central Brighton? Where would your alternative sites be?

 

[WATFORD zero]

I think a poll would sort this out - waterpark, affordable housing, tropical beach, supermarket or leisure centre

 

[The Large One]

TLO has been owned.

Have I, bollocks. The irony was from the fact I asked him not to indulge in name-calling, then I promptly went and called him a name.

 

[Nibble]

OK, a science museum. Not a bad idea. We already have one, but OK.

But, more pertinently - if the station site is not to be used for housing, supermarkets or hotels, how would you accommodate Brighton's housing shortage, hotel-spaces shortage and lack of supermarkets with car-parking facilities in central Brighton? Where would your alternative sites be?

Well, as far as the Supermarkets with parking is concerned there are plenty of supermarkets around Brighton that have adequate parking. If you need the parking, you obviously have a car so why would it be a problem to drive out of the town centre. If Brighton is trying to reduce it's traffic flow and pollution building a large supermarket slap bang in the centre of Brighton goes completely against this ethic as it draws traffic into the congested areas of Brighton and can surely only exist for people to make more money.

Brighton's housing shortage will not be solved by building high priced, cheaply made flats that draw buy to let owners and out of towners.

As far as Hotels are concerned I have no idea about the shortage. Perhaps a nice hotel would be better as oppose to a Jury's Inn with a massive chain pub beneath it.

 

[Nibble]

Have I, bollocks. The irony was from the fact I asked him not to indulge in name-calling, then I promptly went and called him a name.

That's not irony that's anger.

 

[The Large One]

Well, as far as the Supermarkets with parking is concerned there are plenty of supermarkets around Brighton that have adequate parking. If you need the parking, you obviously have a car so why would it be a problem to drive out of the town centre. If Brighton is trying to reduce it's traffic flow and pollution building a large supermarket slap bang in the centre of Brighton goes completely against this ethic as it draws traffic into the congested areas of Brighton and can surely only exist for people to make more money.

Brighton's housing shortage will not be solved by building high priced, cheaply made flats that draw buy to let owners and out of towners.

As far as Hotels are concerned I have no idea about the shortage. Perhaps a nice hotel would be better as oppose to a Jury's Inn with a massive chain pub beneath it.

OK, fair point about the traffic issue, but not having a supermarket there still leaves the area hideously short of that kind of thing. Somerfields is disgusting, and the old Sainsbury's couldn't cope. It's extremely convenient for me, for instance to walk from my shop and go into Sainsbury's on the way home. It's also extremely convenient for people coming off the train on their way home, or for people on foot who live close-ish to the City Centre.

The flats might look cheaply built, and their architecture leaves a lot to be desired, but they still have to conform to building regs etc, so they won't BE cheaply built. And it doesn't matter what sort of new housing you put up in Brighton - it will be expensive.

The hotel issue is not about residents - it's about the city as a whole, and bringing in tourism and trade. So Jury's Inn - frankly - isn't designed for you and me. I can't see it becoming a chav area either really, even if does have a 'crap lager' bar. It will be for weekend trippers, conference delegates and 'stayovers cos they've missed the last sodding train' people.

 

[London Calling]

getting back to the point

I would have tried to make the houses/flats for local people...not sure how though

Under Government Supplementary Planning Guidance, Councils can state all developments of a certain size must have affordable housing and set a minimum percentage, and that must relate to the local economy, there are a number of indicators that can be used here.

London (Uncle Ken) has set a limit of 50% affordable housing. I personally cannot see why a similar deal could not have been arranged for the station site.

Council Planning departments have few power over the design and build quality of developments - outside of Conservation areas, it is a major weakness of our system.

Councils also have Compulsory Purchase Order powers to facilitate regeneration. These could have been used at this site, bearing in mind the length it was a "brownfield site".

But would the locals of Brighton supported such an initiative and the initial outlay and of course the Council would have had to find the development partners etc.

Obviously the Politicians/officers were not keen on this route.

 

[Drumstick]

Why go to a water park when you have a lovely new Sainsburys?

This man makes a good point We need a water sainsburys! Sliding down the aisles is always fun!

 

[The Large One]

That's not irony that's anger.

No, it's not anger. My anger stemmed from you calling me a coward - not once but twice.

 

[The Large One]

Under Government Supplementary Planning Guidance, Councils can state all developments of a certain size must have affordable housing and set a minimum percentage, and that must relate to the local economy, there are a number of indicators that can be used here.

London (Uncle Ken) has set a limit of 50% affordable housing. I personally cannot see why a similar deal could not have been arranged for the station site.

Council Planning departments have few power over the design and build quality of developments - outside of Conservation areas, it is a major weakness of our system.

Councils also have Compulsory Purchase Order powers to facilitate regeneration. These could have been used at this site, bearing in mind the length it was a "brownfield site".

But would the locals of Brighton supported such an initiative and the initial outlay and of course the Council would have had to find the development partners etc.

Obviously the Politicians/officers were not keen on this route.

Brighton & Hove City Council wanted to set it at 30%, but the Planning Inspector at the time for the Public Inquiry for the Local Plan - Charles Hoile, remember him? - said that was unattainable and suggested the figure be set lower. Brighton & Hove City Council decided not to take that advice, in the same way that they decided not to take his advice within the Local Plan Public Inquiry about Falmer.

There is some affordable housing within the New England development - mainly the stuff which is not south or west facing.

 

[Nibble]

OK, fair point about the traffic issue, but not having a supermarket there still leaves the area hideously short of that kind of thing. Somerfields is disgusting, and the old Sainsbury's couldn't cope. It's extremely convenient for me, for instance to walk from my shop and go into Sainsbury's on the way home. It's also extremely convenient for people coming off the train on their way home, or for people on foot who live close-ish to the City Centre.

The flats might look cheaply built, and their architecture leaves a lot to be desired, but they still have to conform to building regs etc, so they won't BE cheaply built. And it doesn't matter what sort of new housing you put up in Brighton - it will be expensive.

The hotel issue is not about residents - it's about the city as a whole, and bringing in tourism and trade. So Jury's Inn - frankly - isn't designed for you and me. I can't see it becoming a chav area either really, even if does have a 'crap lager' bar. It will be for weekend trippers, conference delegates and 'stayovers cos they've missed the last sodding train' people.

Some fair points. But do you not think that better use could have been made of the site or are you perfectly happy with the decisions made?

 

[Nibble]

This is great. It's like me and TLO are having two discussions. One where we insult each other and one where we make sensible points.

 

[Storer68]

The planning committee seem pretty scared of modernising the town, that is why it is falling backwards a little bit.

No stadium in a City is a shambles, but that is onyl the start of it.

Errr Falmer is in the city........ only just but it is.

 

[Storer68]

Brighton & Hove City Council wanted to set it at 30%, but the Planning Inspector at the time for the Public Inquiry for the Local Plan - Charles Hoile, remember him? - said that was unattainable and suggested the figure be set lower. Brighton & Hove City Council decided not to take that advice, in the same way that they decided not to take his advice within the Local Plan Public Inquiry about Falmer.

There is some affordable housing within the New England development - mainly the stuff which is not south or west facing.

Affordable to whom?

Pray tell.

 

[The Large One]

Affordable to whom?

Pray tell.

I'm not 100% up on what the phrase is supposed to mean, but roughly it is supposed to be 'affordable' insofar in that they are rented out by Housing Associations to people who cannot afford the rest of the dwellings for sale, or are part of a scheme where the tenants part-own the property.

'Afforable housing' is the housing stock which is not for the 'for sale' stock.

 

[The Large One]

Some fair points. But do you not think that better use could have been made of the site or are you perfectly happy with the decisions made?

I wouldn't say 'perfectly happy', but considering some of Brighton's needs, I think the scheme has largely been put to good use - glum architecture notwithstanding.

The full picture is here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Quarter