| Author |
Topic |
|
Vince Meegan
Alagaësía
United Kingdom
14 Posts |
 Posted - 03/07/2007 : 14:15:08
|
A few years ago Bernie Jordan, one time Leader of the Hove Tories and Mayor of Hove told me that no matter what was proposed on the King Alfred site, the same band of objectors would appear to oppose it.
He said that over the years various ideas had been mooted and each seen off. It would take a very determined administration to get anything done there, he said.
Of course the root of this is that the local authority cannot just get the City Architect's Department to design a new sports centre as they might have done a few decades ago. The power doesn't exist and neither does the Architect's Department. Thanks to Maggie, and no thanks to Blair who did not restore those powers to the town halls. A very senior council officer also remarked that ten million would have built a new sports complex on the site, but it was not within the council's powers to invest that on behalf of the residents.
Rather curious arithmetic here too. The presumption is that every resident - man woman and child- pays council tax. Only the householder does. A household could have as many as ten individuals or more therein, but only one or even no council tax payers. I would reckon that only one in six of the city population pay council tax, perhaps even less than that! It is a sobering thought.
|
 |
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5222 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2007 : 14:21:27
|
| For crying out loud Vince, most of the objections have been on the grounds that there are attempts to put too many residential units on that site. I don't like the design, I've put my hand up to that one right from the get go however my objections have not been regarding the design, which is after all a purely subjective matter, but more on the grounds that there has been an attempt to cram far too many people into an area that will not be able to support that many people. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
FG1
Alagaësía
Wallis and Futuna Islands
37 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2007 : 14:22:27
|
The Poll tax was the fairest way to pay for the Council. As you say Vince a house could have any number of earners in it and only the householder pays Council Tax.
There is no logical reason for basing this tax on the size of your house. |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5222 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2007 : 14:27:59
|
| It isn't the tax that is based on the size of the house as such, just the rate of tax you pay. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
FG1
Alagaësía
Wallis and Futuna Islands
37 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2007 : 14:42:01
|
| My house doesn't use Council services but I do, so the size(value) of my house is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5222 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2007 : 14:55:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by FG1
My house doesn't use Council services but I do, so the size(value) of my house is irrelevant.
Oh, I agree ... but so does every man-jack, woman-jill, child-betty or baby barney ...
It would have been a far far better thing to have left the rate of council tax payable directly related to the collective income of a household. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
birdy
Alagaësía
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2007 : 15:10:32
|
| Why can't the existing building be refurbished as other pools across the country are?ie swansea,kentish town.The car park and amusement arcade areas could be built on for locals and key workers.What about the huge profits from parking penalties??The council has money,,look at the wind turbine proposals for grand avenue. |
|
|
|
Control Panel
Discworld
1155 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2007 : 17:07:01
|
The current hoo-ha is a technicality. It sounds as if another plot brews. Exit Karis?
I doubt whether we shall see the Mayor turning the first sod or having a go with the ball and chain.
|
|
|
|
Infinite Poppadum
Discworld
1214 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2007 : 18:09:53
|
Tomorrow (Wednesday) at eleven in the morning there is a showing at the Duke of York's of the Frank Gehry film. Mothers can take young children along. These poor mites will certainly be wailing as one horror after another looms upon the screen in a fashion that makes The Thing From Planet X appear decorous.
This dreadful cacophony will have the social services round in an instant, and all the mothers rounded up, prosecuted and the wee bairns taken into care pending respectable foster homes. |
|
|
|
Control Panel
Discworld
1155 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2007 : 18:39:49
|
| Does the agreement over the King Alfred now include fuller details of the Greggs Tea Dome? |
|
|
|
Captain Hawkeye
Barsoom
United Kingdom
391 Posts |
 Posted - 04/07/2007 : 09:48:40
|
What happened then ?
Extract from Architects Journal 3 July 2007 :
Council bows to developers in Gehry's King Alfred scheme
Brighton and Hove City Council has been forced to back down over Frank Gehry’s £300 million King Alfred scheme, after it was threatened with legal action by the developers. |
|
|
|
birdy
Alagaësía
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 10:23:30
|
| Something happened behind closed doors that scared the living daylights out of the council.karis must have threatened and spat,enough to bring forward the meeting by a week. |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5222 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 10:43:39
|
| Isn't that just typical of this whole nightmare ... a local authority being held by the throat by developers. How did our council ever let it get to that? Talk about irresponsibility! |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Captain Hawkeye
Barsoom
United Kingdom
391 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 10:51:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by birdy
Something happened behind closed doors that scared the living daylights out of the council.karis must have threatened and spat,enough to bring forward the meeting by a week.
Far too many closed doors and secret agreements. |
|
|
|
Control Panel
Discworld
1155 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 12:33:34
|
| Karis was at the Council headquarters last Friday... |
|
|
|
long time no see
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6268 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 12:58:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Hawkeye
What happened then ?
Extract from Architects Journal 3 July 2007 :
Council bows to developers in Gehry's King Alfred scheme
Brighton and Hove City Council has been forced to back down over Frank Gehry’s £300 million King Alfred scheme, after it was threatened with legal action by the developers.
Pathetic Council. |
|
|
|
Captain Hawkeye
Barsoom
United Kingdom
391 Posts |
|
|
B.O.B.
Alagaësía
60 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 06:20:11
|
Sad way to start a major building project in the town. The developer threatening to sue the Council. A very bad start. What did the press release say? I can't access the Council website with my ropey old computer.
Thanks |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5222 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 07:53:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Hawkeye
Official Press Release date 3rd July 2007
http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1169214
And here is the content:
Press Release Tuesday 3 July 2007
Special King Alfred planning meeting arranged
The council has called a special meeting of its planning applications sub-committee to consider signing off the ‘Section 106’ legal agreements around the King Alfred redevelopment plans.
The special meeting, to be held on Wednesday 11 July at 9.45am at Hove Town Hall, has been requested by council leader Brian Oxley to avoid further delay and speculation about the project.
Councillor Oxley said: “Sufficient progress had been made in the three days leading up to the last planning committee that the developers were asking for the Section 106 agreement to be signed immediately.
“The redevelopment proposals have generated a huge amount of local feeling, so I felt honour bound to make sure councillors were given the opportunity to consider the detail of the Section 106 legal agreement, rather than leaving that responsibility to officers.
“We understand our contractual commitments to the developers and have no intention of trying to break the terms of the agreement.
“Officers have worked well to produce a very comprehensive set of conditions for members to consider.
“I believe the extra time we are taking to make sure that this decision isn’t rushed, and that councillors have the time they need to get the appropriate legal advice from officers, is a very sensible investment in the future of our city.
“With hindsight I believe more openness and transparency at the earlier stages of this scheme may have prevented such a high level of suspicion locally.
“The council has now established the major projects sub-committee to work on large scale developments of this sort that have city-wide repercussions. I believe strongly that this will lead to more transparent decision making.
“This new committee is also a clear sign to developers looking at other local projects of our commitment to working with them in a constructive and professional manner to deliver developments that will really benefit our city.”
|
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
birdy
Alagaësía
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 21:25:06
|
Subject: King Alfred/RNR Site, Kingsway Hove
BH2006/03429 – S106 Planning Obligation Agreement
Ward(s) affected: Central Hove
1. Purpose of the report
1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Planning Applications Sub-Committee’s agreement to the final wording of the s106 Planning Agreement attached as Appendix II to this report.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That Members note the proposed final terms contents of the s106 Agreement and approve the same.
3. Information/Background
3.1 On 23 March this year the Planning Applications Sub-Committee (PASC) considered a report prepared by the City Planner in relation to an application for the redevelopment of the King Alfred/RNR site in Hove. At that meeting the officer recommendation was agreed by Members. That recommendation was minded to grant subject to conditions, completion of a section 106 Planning Obligation Agreement and the application not being “called in” by the Secretary of State. At that time the power to approve the final S106 Agreement was a matter delegated to the Director of Environment.
3.2 Since that time the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) have confirmed that they do not wish to “call-in” the application for the consideration of the Secretary of State (letter to the City Planner dated 18 May 2007).
3.3 On 27 June Members of PASC considered a report of the Director of Strategy and Governance which considered whether Members wished to deal with the final approval of the S106 Agreement. Members agreed one of the two alternative recommendations and have reserved the power to make the final approval of the S106 Agreement themselves.
4. The S106 Planning Obligation Agreement
4.1 The Agreement secures the 45 Heads of Terms identified as appropriate in the committee report of 23 March. The wording has been finalised by officers and is considered to be acceptable.
4.2 The Heads of Terms are attached as Appendix 1 to this report. The entire Agreement is attached as Appendix 11 to this report.
4.3 Members should note the financial contributions which are secured in accordance with the agreed Heads of Terms.
4.4. Attention is drawn in particular to Clause 13 of the Agreement which deals with affordable housing. Two hundred and seventy six (276) units have been secured. The tenure mix is split in accordance with that reported to Members in March. That is 76 units to be social rented, 100 units to be Shared ownership and 100 to be restricted equity.
4.5 Other significant items include those at Clauses 12, 15, 16 17 and 18 which deal with matters in relation to Highways, Transport and Public Realm Improvements.
5. Consultations
5.1 Officers from the appropriate internal teams have been consulted on and assisted with agreeing the final wording.
APPENDIX 1
Heads of Terms
1. £400,000 education contribution for new school infrastructure within the area;
2. £110,000 towards the provision or improvement of children’s play areas;
3. £40,000 for general improvements to the seafront to be used for the continued work of the City Council’s Seafront Services ;
4. £15,000 annually (to be index-linked in perpetuity) towards maintenance for existing or proposed facilities on Hove seafront;
5. Controlled and agreed concessionary access to the soft play area in the sports centre by children under 8 years old resident within the development site;
6. £1,000,000 to ensure the provision of a seafront sustainable transport solution to service the King Alfred to include rapid transport (RTS) as an integral element of the package, and/or extending existing bus services should RTS fail to come forward; and to allow for a third choice contingency that could be delivered for £1 million should RTS not be implemented and the local bus company choose not to extend existing bus services to the King Alfred;
7. £20,000 towards a Section 106 and conditions co-ordinator within the City Council to oversee and agree the discharging of obligations;
8. The provision of 276 units of affordable housing;
9. £20,000 as a contribution towards the monitoring and/or implementation of works associated with the existing Air Quality Action Plan and/or the proposed Air Quality Action Plan for the Sackville Road/Hove Street area and/or area of elevated pollution along the Kingsway/Kings;
10. £1,000,000 of artistic influence by the design team(Antony Gormley, Gehry Partners, HOK and Luszczak Associates) to include features and structures within the piazzas including shaped feature planters adding interest and variation and shaping the space for functional purposes including informal play by young children, incorporating elements that guide the walking and viewing routes through the eastern piazza, shape and encircle the smaller performance space in the western piazza, with for example seating walls shaped around the performance space; stairs and entrances from the promenade; the provision of 3 phase power points within the piazzas and adjacent to the seafront to enable the facilitation of public events and performances.;
11. A Travel Plan and Travel Plan Co-ordinator for the development;
12. The cost of the Section 106 Agreement;
13. A Car club (X3 vehicles) on St. Aubyns South with membership included in the annual service charge for residents;
14. The relocation of 13 on-street disabled parking spaces from Kings Esplanade to another appropriate on-street location in the vicinity and the cost of any necessary Traffic Regulation Orders. In the event that the TRO cannot be implemented as a result of any objections not being resolved, the Developer will be required to identify and deliver alternative options to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority, which could include other on-street locations in the vicinity of the site and/or the public car park beneath the development;
15. Wheelchair using residents to be entitled to car parking space on conditions no more onerous than other residents;
16. Travel Plan to include annual monitoring of availability and use made of disabled car parking spaces in both public and residential car parks;
17. A prohibition on the obtaining of residents’ parking permits for occupants of the car free housing;
18. A bus lane and bus pick up/drop off facilities on the south side of Kingsway outside of the development with raised kerbs;
19. A bus gate facility at the eastern approach to Hove Street/Hove Street South junction;
20. A covered bus waiting facility including CCTV, real time information, maps and timetables for buses and rail services and a ticket machine for advance purchase of tickets;
21. Advanced stop lines at Hove Street/Kingsway/Hove Street South junction;
22. A review of the cycle route along the promenade following occupation of the development;
23. Junction reconfigurations including radii increase in for Hove Street South to accommodate HGV turning movements;
24. A VMS system compatible with the City Council’s existing VMS system, to include a minimum of three signs on entry to the car park;
25. Clear directional signage for pedestrians using the sports centre, from and to other destinations;
26. The resurfacing and traffic calming of Hove Street South, including provision of a turning head for refuse vehicles and widening of the cycle route;
27. Provision of a bus shelter and taxi shelter on the north side of Kingsway;
28. A construction workers’ travel scheme to detail how workers are going to access the site;
29. The display and provision of cycle maps;
30. Traffic Regulation Orders (and their cost) to re-designate car parking spaces for motorcycle parking, coach waiting areas, car club spaces, service bays and taxi ranks including waiting/loading ban on Kingsway between St. Aubyns South and Hove Street South;
31. Upgrading of the pedestrian crossing between Vallance Gardens and St. Aubyns;
32. A unified series of offsite public realm works in the vicinity of the site, to bond and unify the development with the surrounding area, upgrade the quality and safety of the public realm and improve pedestrian connections, particularly across the A259, in accordance with the King Alfred Public Realm Strategy produced by Gehl Associates;
33. A charging regime for the public car park with punitive charges for long stay car parking;
34. At least 36 of the car parking spaces in the private residential car park to be retained for use by occupiers of the affordable housing;
35. Provision of a doctor’s surgery on site equivalent to 257m2 of floorspace for use only as a doctors surgery including appropriate controls on non-use, vacancy and rental levels;
36. Provision of a police office on site equivalent to 48m2 of floorspace for use only as a police office (with appropriate controls concerning non-use, vacancy and rental levels to ensure its continued use as a police office for as long is required by the police force);
37. Provision of replacement public toilets on site;
38. Improved lighting around the perimeter of the development;
39. Electronic interference mitigation measures;
40. Submission and implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan;
41. Cleaning and maintenance of buildings including bird control measures to maintain appearance of building;
42. CCTV within the site and around its perimeter to make it a safe and accessible environment;
43. The continued involvement of Gehry Partners LLP and HOK as the architects of the development and as integral members of the design team;
44. Obligation to use the most up to date Green Guide specification for materials and appliances throughout the development;
45. Construction training opportunities
for local people during the development of the site, in accordance with the details of the ‘Karis Agreement’;
Background Papers: Planning Application Case File BH2006/03429
Contact Officer: Jeanette Walsh, Acting Area Planning Manager (West), 01273 292195
|
|
|
|
birdy
Alagaësía
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 21:35:11
|
| why has Brian Oxley backed down??Despite advice from the regency society-see their website.Note also the one million artistic influence-it could be by anyone,send your entries in now! |
|
|
|
Control Panel
Discworld
1155 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 22:11:02
|
| There's long way to go with the King Alfred yet. More later. |
|
|
|
Captain Hawkeye
Barsoom
United Kingdom
391 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 08:55:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Control Panel
There's long way to go with the King Alfred yet. More later.
Yes indeed. Should put East Enders in the shade. |
|
|
|
FG1
Alagaësía
Wallis and Futuna Islands
37 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 10:18:47
|
| Where is the £2.5 million for indoor bowls promised in the Karis leaflet? |
|
|
|
Captain Hawkeye
Barsoom
United Kingdom
391 Posts |
 Posted - 06/07/2007 : 10:46:40
|
Can someone clarify Item 6.
£1,000,000 to ensure the provision of a seafront sustainable transport solution
Where is that money coming from ? |
|
|
|
Control Panel
Discworld
1155 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 13:56:52
|
| If King Alfred objectors provide a full financial analysis of the proposed development, that will show how precarious it is. Design questions are now irrelevant. it is all economics. |
|
|
|
birdy
Alagaësía
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 14:40:54
|
| Would it not be better to stop the greens siding with labour at next weeks final shoot-out?Asking Brian Oxley to read the thousands of pounds worth of legal documents provided by the Regency Society???As far as financial-what about vat?that has not been mentioned. |
|
|
|
Control Panel
Discworld
1155 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 17:21:56
|
If Seeda can stump up £5m for the Stadium and £19m for the Brighton Centre - neither of which involves people in exercise - why couldn't it contribute to a King Alfred sports centre?
What moves were made along these lines? |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5222 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 17:23:28
|
| Be fair ... people will certainly exercise at the Stadium ... even if it is only their vocal chords. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
B.O.B.
Alagaësía
60 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 06:17:50
|
after watching the film about Frank Gehry I'd like to know how much of this current scheme has been designed by him. Just the towers I'd say and they are pretty bog standard for him looking at his other work. Why could not something been made of the position of the development right next to the sea. It could have been a very exciting building project. It looks almost pedestrian next to his other work and the surrounding blocks were surely not designed by him.
I'd like to see a picture of his original design which won the competition and which wowed the Councillors to compare with what we've got now. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
K*** A****d
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 14:54:37