| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| birdy |
Posted - 25/06/2007 : 17:03:53
It seems that more pound signs are flashing in the eyes of the house owners opposite the burchill block of flats in somerhill avenue.Four owners are clubbing together to obtain outline planning permission for another cement filled souless block.I find it so sad,they are the sort of family homes one dreams of,huge gardens and a part of the fabric of the area,close to one of the best parks in hove. |
| 14 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Control Panel |
Posted - 28/06/2007 : 11:04:10
Gone a bit quiet this topic. Sounds as if the flats can be built. |
| Lansdowne |
Posted - 27/06/2007 : 08:22:02
Well done Vince, and sorry you're not still on the council.
Yesterday's Argus quotes Tory housing spokesperson Mary Mears as saying "We are very aware of the housing shortage which is why we work with developers to maximise the amount that can be delivered."
It hasn't always seemed like that at Planning when the Tories en-masse vote down low-cost housing in posh Tory areas. |
| Vince Meegan |
Posted - 27/06/2007 : 06:46:52
Well, there's a surprise! During the planning application for building flats on the 'Burchill site' I attended a meeting in one of the houses across the road from there. They were up in arms. Apart from me, and a perhaps a dozen other residents, there was Cllr. Anne Giebeler and the then Hove PPC, Nick Boles. (Charming guy, BTW, pity he was a Tory!)
I told them that we lived in a capitalist society and that an Englishman was free to do as he wished with his own property. If the house(s) concerned is not listed or of architectural or historical significance, then it can be demolished. The disappearance of 'grand houses' to make way for apartments is a process that has been going on since the 1950s.
Turning to the new building application, I noted that there are flats of similar height across the road at Coniston Court, behind the site and nearby. I really could not see what their planning objection was. The people in the recently built houses behind the proposed site might legitimately claim they would lose some daylight, but then their building overshadows my house in the mornings. I didn't go crying to Planning when that happened.
I concluded my peroration by telling all of them that the building industry employs millions of us, everyone from architects, lawyers, planners and building societies. And when we move into a new house we buy carpets, curtains, paint and paper and furniture etc. The building industry is one of the great engines of the economy, and NO government is going to bring in legislation to hamper it. This last remark was directed at Nick Boles. I was hoping he would be provoked into saying the Tories would wave a magic wand or something, but he wisely refrained from doing so! As you can imagine, these remarks went down like a lead balloon, but I thought it was best to be candid rather than pretend I was going to turn up at Planning wasting the Committee's time with no-hope objections.
Better 'declare an interest' in that I live in a house nearby. Over the last decade or more, there has been a series of offers from developers eager to buy my home and my neighbours', subject to all of us selling. For various boring reasons we have not accepted any of the offers. So far.
|
| Captain Hawkeye |
Posted - 25/06/2007 : 22:00:58
quote:
Originally posted by Infinite Poppadum
The position is unclear.
If a house is designated suitable for knocking down and rebuilding as flats, then the owner is perfectly entitled to do so. Or to sit tight and wait for the value of the land to go up.
What is needed is a clear statement of which houses have been designated suitable for this.
It is really odious, the way in which people are reviled for doing something which they are legally entitled to do.
With a map marked out by the Council of those houses which can go, then everybody would be aware of the way in which the urban landscape is likely to change over the next decade or two.
That is the postive, perhaps debatable way in which to regard the situation but, as it is, right now anybody who sets about selling a house is subject to these sneers of being some sort of opportunist.
Hence this earlier comment:
2. What about the local plan and/or local development framework ? What has been done to maintain the neighbourhood via these ? |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 25/06/2007 : 21:19:19
quote:
Originally posted by Infinite Poppadum
Why is Julie Burchill always named for selling her house but not the other people?
I think you'll find that she brought it up herself during this interview ... "I've made so much money from the sale of my house I don't need to do journamisl anymore" ... or words to that effect. |
| Infinite Poppadum |
Posted - 25/06/2007 : 21:19:11
The position is unclear.
If a house is designated suitable for knocking down and rebuilding as flats, then the owner is perfectly entitled to do so. Or to sit tight and wait for the value of the land to go up.
What is needed is a clear statement of which houses have been designated suitable for this.
It is really odious, the way in which people are reviled for doing something which they are legally entitled to do.
With a map marked out by the Council of those houses which can go, then everybody would be aware of the way in which the urban landscape is likely to change over the next decade or two.
That is the postive, perhaps debatable way in which to regard the situation but, as it is, right now anybody who sets about selling a house is subject to these sneers of being some sort of opportunist. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 25/06/2007 : 21:09:26
Because the press love her? |
| Infinite Poppadum |
Posted - 25/06/2007 : 21:01:59
Why is Julie Burchill always named for selling her house but not the other people? |
| Daveb |
Posted - 25/06/2007 : 20:54:06
Let the council buy them.
Could fit at least 50 council flats (sorry, social housing) in the space.
That should go down well! |
| Control Panel |
Posted - 25/06/2007 : 19:09:11
All must depend upon the agreed proportion of houses/flats? There cannot be a limitless number of houses knocked down?
The flats on Davigdor Road made it inevitable that the Somerhill houses would go.
There are flats on Nizells Avenue opposite the tennis. |
| birdy |
Posted - 25/06/2007 : 17:33:20
Do you mean the old hotel?i think that it is now an 11 room hostel and the owner would not sell at the time,but may be waiting until the price is right?? |
| Control Panel |
Posted - 25/06/2007 : 17:24:55
What is the Planning guidance for that side of the street? |
| Captain Hawkeye |
Posted - 25/06/2007 : 17:24:22
As with the site where the flats are now being built, the owners of the houses are in a position to make a large financial gain. The prospect of another block of flats is a symptom of the pressure that the area is under.
Two points:
1. What about the lone building on the corner of Somerhill Avenue and Somerhill Road ?
2. What about the local plan and/or local development framework ? What has been done to maintain the neighbourhood via these ? |
| No Expert |
Posted - 25/06/2007 : 17:16:36
I repect your opinion on this. But as it's their properties, then why shouldn't they be allowed to do what they like with them? If you owned one and didn't want to do that, then that should also be your right too.
*shrugs* |
