[Albion] Help the club's hotel and cancer unit planning application

[blue'n'white]

Done - whether it will have any effect as I don't live in Brighton I don't know

 

[Driver8]

http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgChooseDocPack.aspx?ID=5779

Thanks.

 

[Shy Talk]

Having just read the whole report, I think the officers' report is well considered and very balanced. The recommendation is to refuse on grounds that can be overcome by amended designs and contributions. The principle is acceptable. Why would we want an ugly building there, and why shouldn't the developer contribute towards improved access for the disabled? The planning officer is right, IMHO!

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

As above the first point is subjective and the perceived harm caused by the hotel ultimately needs to be weighed against the employment and health care benefits. The second point in regards to S106 monies is subject to national tests of being reasonable and necessary to make the development acceptable, it would appear that the Club and Council disagree as to the amounts that are reasonable and necessary.

Without knowing the full facts of the case it is difficult to know the amount of back and forth there has been on the above points and justification provided, and whilst you are welcome to your opinion, I think you are being harsh on the Club.

Fair enough, full details of the exchanges between the Council and applicant are not available, and having been at a planning committee meeting all evening perhaps I was a bit terse.
However, it is clear from the officers' report that at the pre-application discussion stage the Councillors involved at the meeting(s) raised concerns about the suitability of the intended design, colour etc for this location. It doesn't seem that much, if anything, was changed so why the surprise, despite what BHA is now contending, that the officers are recommending rejection on this point. I don't think anyone is being harsh to view the proposed design as not being in keeping with the surroundings.
As to the S106 disagreements, the report indicates that the applicant's points were taken into account when arriving at the £45k figure. If this doesn't stand up to scrutiny then the report author should have an deservedly awkward time at the planning committee meeting.

 

[Official Old Man]

Not sure I like the 'square' design. The beautiful curves of the Amex will be ruined by a square block. Are these plans final or 'outline' plans that could be altered? Is it likely that a small square building may become a 7 storey curve to perfectly match the Amex?

 

[Hotchilidog]

Just had a look at the officers report and I see no reason why this will not go ahead. The report actually includes many reasons to support the building of the hotel. The main objection really seems to be the design of the hotel, which I think most are agreed is reasonably dull. When push comes to shove, if no compromise is reached I cannot see elected councillors opposing it for this reason. There is also a minor spat about a £28,000 contribution to some Highways Agency improvements and somehting about jobs for locals.

The objections do not seem to be big enough to completely halt what (even the report agrees) will be a beneficial asset tot he city. If there is some concession on design and they stump up the HA cash then I can see this going through. In my view the cost of it not going ahead for the city is too great.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Having just read the whole report, I think the officers' report is well considered and very balanced. The recommendation is to refuse on grounds that can be overcome by amended designs and contributions. The principle is acceptable. Why would we want an ugly building there, and why shouldn't the developer contribute towards improved access for the disabled? The planning officer is right, IMHO!

Reading through the report, it does mainly seem to boil down to the consensus that our iconic stadium deserves an iconic hotel, and this ain't it. Back to the design drawing board then.

 

[Landgull]

Done.

 

[Magic Sponge]

Done - A benefit to the club and the local community.

 

[Postman Pat]

I didn't think the hotel would be particularly visible from Falmer/A27 to be that much of an issue.

I appreciate they would like designs in keeping with the area, but I suppose the questions could be asked about the blocky student accommodation by Falmer station and what has been approved at the King Alfred site.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

In its current form no thanks Paul/Darren.
Having read the planning officer's report they have reasonable points both aesthetically and in law which could and should have been resolved by the applicant before now. Personally, I think the external design is uninspiring and not in keeping with the immediate surroundings.

I'm sorry to say that I agree. There has been plenty of time to get the application into shape, and it may well be the case that the right outcome of next week's Planning Committee meeting would be a refusal, followed by a resubmission of the application in a form that meets the Council's requirements.

This should have been foreseen. Nothing that is set out in the report that the Committee will be considering suggests that there is any reason in principle why a hotel shouldn't be built next to the stadium.

 

[Mr Putdown]

- It creates 82 full time jobs, all of whom will be employed by the Football Club

A small point Bozza, but isn't it 32 full time jobs, working for Brighton & Hove Sports And Leisure Limited as opposed to the club?

Oh, and done.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

Like many others, I spent a lot of time campaigning for our beautifully curvy, iconic stadium. And like many others, I ridiculed all suggestions by our opponents during our fight for approval that the club were additionally planning to build a hotel on the site. Because we were told there was absolutely no chance of that happening.

If we are now to accept that a hotel is necessary – and even beneficial to the wider community – then we are surely entitled to expect a building to echo the stunning design of the stadium itself. The Amex does not deserve to be obscured by bland, high-rise rectangular concrete blocks.

Such objections – entirely on aesthetic grounds – can easily be overcome by the submission of a far more imaginative design. Brighton & Hove already has far too many indifferent construction projects in progress: –

King Alfred proposal – cluster of replica 1970s housing estate blocks, in a primary seafront location. Hideous. Reject.

The i360 – 450ft steel-mesh power station chimney stack re-imagined as doughnut-on-stick. Hideous. Too late.

Amex Hotel – L-shaped concrete prison block? Or seductively curvy, quirky design, perfectly complementing the stadium...?

 

[BensGrandad]

Is this only applicable to Brighton residents or can anybody support it irrespective of home address?

 

[ringmerseagulltoo]

the officers appear to accept the principles of the application, it is the detail that is recommended for rejection. That being the case, assuming the architects have the skills to produce a more acceptable and sympathetic design, the usual course of events is to withdraw the application from the next meeting so that a compromise design can be achieved. It is better to defer an application than have a rejection, then go through all the hoops of a reapplication with all the repeat consultations that requires.

 

[B52]

Done

 

[Mowgli37]

Done.

 

[Barry Izbak]

My son has just started work at Brighton & Hove City Council and found my approval of this application on his desk this afternoon.
He tells me they've had "millions"
But then you know how kids exaggerate

 

[Creaky]

the officers appear to accept the principles of the application, it is the detail that is recommended for rejection. That being the case, assuming the architects have the skills to produce a more acceptable and sympathetic design, the usual course of events is to withdraw the application from the next meeting so that a compromise design can be achieved. It is better to defer an application than have a rejection, then go through all the hoops of a reapplication with all the repeat consultations that requires.

I agree but section 8.33 of the report to the planning committee suggests the club is digging in its heels

8.33 The applicant has been made aware of the concerns over the design of the
hotel and has been advised to present the application to an external Design
Review Panel both at the pre-application stage and again during the course of
the current application. The applicant has declined on the basis that having
considered a number of options, it is their view that design is appropriate for the
location and that the proposed design offers the best solution to providing a
building which meets the operational requirements of a hotel and limits the
impact on the South Downs National Park and the adjacent stadium, whilst
providing a viable development

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Of course I would have preferred it to be more 'in keeping' with The Amex, but the pros far outweigh the cons.

Particularly the cancer unit.

So done.