A petition to protect Medina House, one of the most historic sites on Hove seafront, will be considered by councillors in just over a fortnight.
Save Hove, the conservation group, presented the petition to a recent meeting of the Brighton and Hove City Council Planning Committee.
Valerie Paynter, who handed in the petition, was unimpressed at the way that it was received.
It had been signed by more than 300 people urging the council to draw up a planning brief for Medina House in King’s Esplanade.
They say that the owner Sirus Taghan has submitted a number of inappropriate proposals for the site and has neglected the property.
The council’s Economic Development and Culture Committee will consider whether to ask planners to draw up a brief for the site.
A planning brief would mean that the owner had clear guidelines spelling out what he can and cannot do.
Neighbours have previously opposed proposals which they have criticised for being too tall and for overlooking a street of old cottages.
The petition’s signatories included Hove MP Mike Weatherley, ward councillor Andrew Wealls and Roy Pennington, a former deputy chairman of the planning committee.
Others to back the petition included the architects Andy Parsons and Geoffrey Baker and retired planning officers Sue Moffatt and Hazel McKay.
The other councillor serving the ward that includes Medina House, the Central Hove ward, is planning committee chairman Councillor Christopher Hawtree.
He said that the matter would be considered at the economic development and culture committee meeting at Hove Town Hall on Thursday 20 September.
Knock it down and build something useful .. If you want to reused some of the salvage fine but its not building worth wasting public time or money upon..
Hoveman, if you understood the constraints of the site you might have made a different point. You do realise that nothing higher than existing can be built because of what lies behind it: Sussex Road and Victoria Cottages which are TINY and in need of existing light levels as minimum.
The building can be restored and made useful. Why do you believe the building is not “worth wasting public time or money upon”? It is the owner who has been doing the wasting of time and money – for 14 years. Don’t you have a problem with that?
It has been such a shame to let the property waste away for so long. The outside walls should be kept or kept in style if extended and the inside is updated. Why not create a communal place for young and old to meet.
What about lottery grant monies…..
Have a small stage upstairs inviting events incl. plays, music….and downstairs small cafe (allowing opening to outside area in summer) and or gift stalls, attracting local artists…..
There must be many good uses we have missed putting into action….I believe the Council should take ownership and manage or someone under stringent guidelines and who has a vested interest in Hove such as some of our local residents along the seaside…..like Heather has done at the Lagoon…..
Compulsory purchase could have been part of the petition request but the small group of saveHOVE supporters organised to deal with Medina House enforcement and meeting with the council as well as raising the petition were against it at this time, not believing that the Council would ever do it.
Meanwhile the Council compulsory purchases elsewhere. I personally favour immediate compulsory purchase and no more shenanigans.
We fully endorse Valerie’s comments !
Why not start a groupcompany to raise the money to purchase the building and redevelop it yourselves?
Why use public money to Compulsory purchase?
If you can think of a good way to make the building pay then please do it.
Don’t expect the tax payer to save a build that’s now redundant and that we have no use for.
How much would compulsory purchase cost?
Given the importance of bathing to the history of Brighton and Hove this is an important building. Just because a building’s original use has gone is not a reason for demolishing it. Following that kind of warped logic, the Pavilion would have had been pulled down in about 1850.
Hoveman you jump to conclusions without enough info.
People have tried to buy the building from Sirus Taghan and he says OK – for £5 or £6million. Which is absurd. Compulsory purchase would be for the amount it is properly valued at, not amounts the owner is teasing people with.
Were BHCC to compulsory purchase it would be free to do whatever is necessary to get the money back, including selling it on. It could sort it out and use it itself – whatever. There would be NO loss of money to the public purse.
You presumably are OK with BHCC borrowing £14million to lend to developers Marks Barfield in the belief that 400 people an hour (or millions per annum) will want to go up its proposed pole in a pod to look out to sea and over the Downs from 175metres up….and then come down and spend lots of money locally. Gambling with public money is worse.
Valerie Paynter. Yes I do have a problem with the Council lending money for the ‘I’. It’s a commercial venture. It stands or falls on its ability to make a profit. As far as I’m concerned if the Council do not make money out of it they should be held to account for improper use of public money.
Clive. The building was previously owned by Hove Borough Council. They sold it to be re-developed. They did not sell it to be preserved in aspic.
I’m certain the intension was always to re-develop the site for housing. The proposed value of the site would be based on that potential.
If the now Brighton and Hove City Council are reneging on that then shame on them. They’ve cost the current owners a great deal of wasted time and money. Why should the owners take a loss because of a change in administration?
I’ll say again if you want it – buy it – develop it – but do not expect to use public money to do it.
Hoveman: I didn’t suggest the building should be preserved in aspic, though tbh I can’t see what the original intention of a defunct local authority has got to do with what happens to this building now.
If the politics of a city (or country) change, it is a case of ‘buyer beware’ for anyone doing business. Somewhere, I expect the owner of a laminating company will be counting the cost of the abolition of the ID card scheme. Too bad: get used to it.
Similarly, the owner of this building might have to find another way of making an enormous sum of money other than building a load of flats that don’t meet planning regs. My heart bleeds for him.
As I said before … If you can think of a use that will not be a drain on the tax payer be my guest ……. But I doubt it …..
PS. Agree about the ID Card scam along with the House Buyer Packs. Complete waste of Public and Private money. Lets ensure this is not the same.
By all of your comments it will mean that the developer , and no doubt all his investors, have been knowingly sold a pup by the Council.. If I were them and the site where compulsory purchased I’d be look to the courts for a very large payout..
I’ll say again if you want it – buy it – develop it – but do not expect to use public money to do it.
Your oft-repeated point – as well as being trite, and offensive in its implication that only the wealthy should have a say in what happens in their communities – is also redundant given the owner’s refusal to sell the building at a realistic price.
I repeat my point about ‘buyer beware’. The whole point about being a developer is that it involves risk. Your assertion that this was sold for housing in the first place does not appear to be based on verifiable fact, and the rules about height and space to which Valerie refers have been in place for many years.
You are entitled to your view that the building isn’t worth saving, but the range of signatories to this petition would indicate that an awful lot of people do not agree with you.
1. A cause célèbre will always attract those after the lime-light..
2. ‘buyer beware’ when the seller then pulls the rug is NOT acceptable.. Its tanatamount to fraud.
3. What use is the building? Another museum?
1. Cynic!
2. We’ve not established on what basis this building was sold. And anyway this isn’t a case of the seller pulling the rug – we are talking about a) planning restrictions that have been in place for years and b) public opinion.
3. Medina House was used for offices before, I believe, so that’s one possible use among many. It’s not listed, owing to it having been altered for that purpose. One upside of this is that it can be easily adapted or this or indeed any other use.
pull it down & use it as a parking place because its no use just sitting there rotting away or even better let the squirter know its empty then all the residents will want it knocked down problem solved.