[Albion] Bennetts Field

[BNthree]

Thanks. It was the council.

View attachment 153136

The applicant can now go straight to appeal with The Planning Inspectorate.

f***ing hell: 555 bedrooms? They’d have been raking it in if that had been approved. Most of the new purpose built accommodation places rent at £200+ a week. Saying all rooms occupied at £200 a week that’s £110,000 a week incoming!! Can see why Mr Bennett doesn’t seem too fussed about fees from parking.

 

[Weststander]

Well I'm not sending any more flowers to John Prescott, Mrs Wz had her suspicions the last time

My box of Audrey’s chocs to Hazel Blears finally did the trick. I’ve never been given credit for this

 

[WATFORD zero]

My box of Audrey’s chocs to Hazel Blears finally did the trick. I’ve never been given credit for this

As I remember Hazel was a Northerner. Shirely only a proppa Brightonian (or Hoveian) would really appreciate Audrey's

 

[Weststander]

f***ing hell: 555 bedrooms? They’d have been raking it in if that had been approved. Most of the new purpose built accommodation places rent at £200+ a week. Saying all rooms occupied at £200 a week that’s £110,000 a week incoming!! Can see why Mr Bennett doesn’t seem too fussed about fees from parking.

I know someone with land in Brighton in a near identical scenario. As with the Bennett’s, he’s selling the land to a student housing provider. 280 student flats, just for the land, he’s receiving £9m.

If 555 comes off and they’ve had the right agent/advisor batting for them, the Bennett’s could gross £18m pre taxes.

The Bennett’s probably won’t be funding the planning application, this would be a multi-£ six figure sum for the planning package, architects and array of consultants fees.

 

[Weststander]

As I remember Hazel was a Northerner. Shirely only a proppa Brightonian (or Hoveian) would really appreciate Audrey's

I always send Peter Kyle a box at Xmas , he’s appreciative. I gave up on Caroline, she whinged about the packaging.

 

[Gordon Bennett]

Did the Albion formally object?

No. Club wrote flagging a number of concerns but its not what you'd call an objection.

Was there any recommendations, might have been a universal no with no positives to grasp?

Officer recommendation to refuse - partly on the scale of the scheme/visual effect/position next to SDNP and partly on insufficient information on various issues. Given the 'investment' in the application so far you'd expect at the very least a revised application, probably one that scales down the proposal to some degree.

 

[BNthree]

No. Club wrote flagging a number of concerns but its not what you'd call an objection.

Officer recommendation to refuse - partly on the scale of the scheme/visual effect/position next to SDNP and partly on insufficient information on various issues. Given the 'investment' in the application so far you'd expect at the very least a revised application, probably one that scales down the proposal to some degree.

Username is very appropriate for this reply..

 

[BNthree]

I know someone with land in Brighton in a near identical scenario. As with the Bennett’s, he’s selling the land to a student housing provider. 280 student flats, just for the land, he’s receiving £9m.

If 555 comes off and they’ve had the right agent/advisor batting for them, the Bennett’s could gross £18m pre taxes.

The Bennett’s probably won’t be funding the planning application, this would be a multi-£ six figure sum for the planning package, architects and array of consultants fees.

Eye watering figures!

 

[amexer]

No. Club wrote flagging a number of concerns but its not what you'd call an objection.

Officer recommendation to refuse - partly on the scale of the scheme/visual effect/position next to SDNP and partly on insufficient information on various issues. Given the 'investment' in the application so far you'd expect at the very least a revised application, probably one that scales down the proposal to some degree.

Reading the reasons for refusal it looked a very black and white no

 

[Gordon Bennett]

Reading the reasons for refusal it looked a very black and white no

Very few things to do with planning are black and white, it's all shades of grey!

Just because a Council says there is insufficient information doesn't necessarily mean that is the case and of course it doesn't mean there isn't the possibility of an applicant re-submitting a scheme with more information.

I've only skimmed parts of the report but it seems as though a major concern is the design and appearance of the buildings - essentially they will stick out like a sore thumb when viewed alongside the natural landscape, the design of the AMEX itself and what is described as the existing smooth transition between rural and urban environment.

If it were me, I'd be looking at whether the scheme could be redesigned to be more in keeping, whilst retaining enough rooms/units to still be commercially viable.

 

[Change at Barnham]

Ok but weird post for a Bennett’s field planning application thread

Oops! I was replying to and agreeing with Harry Wilson's post moments before that lots of people seemed to be blaming Chelsea for everything.