Councillors have agreed to start the process that will lead to the demolition eight tower blocks – and said that people had already started to move out and into new homes.
Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet formally approved demolishing St James’ House, in Kemp Town, Nettleton Court and Dudeney Lodge, in Hollingdean, and five blocks at the top of Whitehawk.
The proposal was agreed in a meeting at Hove Town Hall yesterday (Thursday 19 March) when Labour councillor Gill Williams paid tribute to the residents for their co-operation throughout the process.
She said that officials had knocked on every door to speak to residents to make sure that people understood what was happening.
Councillor Williams, the council’s cabinet member for housing, said: “It really can’t be underestimated how distressing and worrying it is to be uprooted from your home because this is what is happening.
“Even though it’s unavoidable, we have to just get through it better. I’ve witnessed first-hand how the residents are dealing with this.
“There is much sadness – there really is – because people have been there for a couple of generations. It’s so sad but there is also so much resilience and fortitude. It’s actually quite humbling.”
Fellow Labour councillor Alan Robins asked members to note the effects of the move on older people.
Councillor Robins said: “It might be for some of them that they will never return. Somebody of my age … if I had to move out of my home for 10 years, I’d be 80 if I ever returned.
“I think it was William Blake who said at seed time we learn, harvest we teach and winter we enjoy, which is an analogy of life, suggesting as you get older you take things easier.
“It must be a terrible strain for people who’ve been there all that while.”
The eight blocks of flats were made from concrete and built with “large panel systems” (LPS) which have stood for more than 50 years but fall short of modern safety standards.
Concerns came to light as a result of safety checks carried out after 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire, in London, in 2017.
A team of housing officials is currently being recruited to support hundreds of residents as they look for new homes.
The Labour leader of the council Bella Sankey said that she had attended community engagement events and heard residents’ mixed feelings.
Councillor Sankey said: “The sense of anxiety and uncertainty this situation brings is absolutely heard by us.
“We will continue as a council seeking to understand people’s concerns and to work with people to plan for the future.”
She said that the package being offered to the residents was a positive one.
People living in the blocks would be offered a home of the same size as the one that they had now, with the option to downsize should they wish.
All were being given the right to return to live in the replacement buildings once completed.
Leaseholders would have their flats bought back – and the council was running a pilot project to provide deposits for people using their “right to buy” option, with £400,000 allocated to cover 10 £40,000 grants.
The rehousing programme and proposed lease buybacks were expected to be covered by an existing budget of £7.5 million which was agreed last July.
The initial demolition orders are for seven years although Councillor Williams said that the process was expected to take five years.
Sadly will they miss their neighbours and chances are will be downsized as there maybe new tenants that also need housing.
Being allocated housing to suit your needs is a privilege not a right, downsizing from whar you don’t need means space for others. Should be enforced instead of allowing people to occupy homes they don’t fill. Bedroom tax solved nothing, just blocked other peoples needs, Government and Councils should double the rent for every bedroom in excess.
…… No doubt you live by that credo !
As happens I do, I have no need for empty rooms to pay rent and council tax on, same with my car, does everything I need at reasonable money, I’ve never understood peoples need for eternal costly spaces they pay rent on but never occupy. Social housing and rents are designed for the masses not private enterprise, if you need bigger empty spaces go buy them. Nothing to stop people going private but I don’t agree with people having 2-3 extra rooms at the taxpayers expense. Yes I live in one 44sqm, adequate for me and squeeze a couple of my kids in when they visit. Another point to clear, people living in buildings that they knew were coming down should possibly have made some preparations ,,,,,, 20 years ago when it started, the master plan is not changing but will be delayed like these plans usually are.
Are you including home offices in your opinion which many second bedrooms now serve as? Surprisingly few people in this city have the luxury of an unused bedroom solely reserved for the occasional guest, never mind an extra ‘boxroom’ for stuff like my grandparents used to enjoy.
Home office has a function, presumably tax deductable, unlike spare or empty taxpayer subsidised bedrooms, simple enough for you ??? The eternal never ending supply of council built homes was finished 2 decades ago, at least. Now we need more homes of various sizes and this idea of entitlement to more than what you need is out of place given that so many need homes, make space. keep what you need, anything else pay for it yourself.
Yep, home offices are part of simple expenses, a flat rate per month based on how many hours you spend using it. Great thing to know if you’re self-employed!
Chances are, Ali, that “People living in the blocks would be offered a home of the same size as the one that they had now, with the option to downsize should they wish.”
Fortunately, we don’t have to rely on chance. However, I do agree with Stan when it comes to social housing that pragmatism should play a part in the allocations. For the benefit of having a place at 30% of what you’d pay privately, you should have an appropriate occupation. Thinking of it another way, too, it makes life more affordable when you’re not paying the higher rents for a larger property.
Although…with the upheaval, I think the human thing to do is to allow like-for-like. Then, after some attrition, the council should up its tenancy check game – because that’s why under/over occupancy is allowed to happen.
Thought Brighton had a huge housing shortage. Where are these hundreds of spare homes that will be needed?
Transitional, not all at once but in stages to allow new builds to complete before moving people around. Also gives time and space for demolition in phases.
Benjamin You’re talking about “pragmatism” like this is just a numbers exercise, but these are people being forced out of homes they’ve lived in for decades. It’s not just about square footage or rent levels—it’s about community, stability, and not being uprooted late in life.
And the idea that people should accept tighter conditions because they’re paying less ignores why social housing exists in the first place. Managing occupancy is one thing, but using it to justify pushing people around—especially during something as disruptive as demolition—feels pretty detached from the reality residents are facing.
Your AI completely ignored my last paragraph. Again, for the 11th time, you shouldn’t rely on AI to write comments for you, because it often makes mistakes, and for the 11th time, this is yet another example of it. It’s also retreated into high concepts, which generally means it doesn’t actually have a point to make. You are better than this, James.
Benjamin This obsession with calling everything “AI” instead of actually engaging with the point is getting a bit tired. You’ve written a lot there
Starting to say more about you than me.
Perhaps you should get out in the sun today
You can’t engage with a flawed point, James. It’s fallacious. It’s tried because you’re not learning from it. So yes, it says a lot about me that I’m consistent and that I won’t let you get away with purely generated comments that are fundamentally flawed. Resorting to ad hominem doesn’t change this. You are better than this, James.
Good point. Humans are are not cattle to be herded hither and thither into smaller and smaller pens for the benefit of an increasingly profit-driven council and that was never the point of council or social housing. It was originally to relieve the conditions of cramped slums and create new and healthier communities with more space and indoor bathrooms. Labour was originally the friend and party of the working classes.
Labour, Socialist based ideaology, not vey Socialist keeping 4 rooms when you only need 2 and at the same time the waiting list grows, yes yes very Socialist by some peoples “standards”, just not if YOU have to participate.
Counterpoint Tracy; we have a limited amount of social homes for an increasing number of people. To benefit the most people, we want to ensure that these homes are being fully utilised. Take an absurdity – if every two-bedroom social home were only occupied by one person, we’d be effectively only benefiting 25-50% of the potential people, based on current occupancy rules.
I note you frequently challenge on ensuring the council are being as sensible as possible with its finances and assets, so by that logic, would you agree that it’s important that people are given the right-sized home for their family unit?
Benjamin
Calling something “AI-generated” doesn’t actually make it wrong—it just sidesteps the argument. If you think a point is flawed, then point out where it’s flawed instead of dismissing it outright.
And to be clear, nothing I said was about Community Payback being invalid in itself—just that it’s limited and not a broader solution. That’s not a fallacy, it’s a disagreement.
Did you manage to get out in the fresh air today down in hove ?
You’ve skipped over the key part of what I actually said.
I was clear that during the upheaval, people should be rehoused like-for-like. The point about occupancy comes later, once things have stabilised. Instead, you’ve argued against tighter conditions during the move, which I didn’t suggest. That’s a strawman. At that point, there’s nothing to engage with, because it’s not the argument being made.
This is exactly the kind of drift you get when replies are overly AI-led, for the 14th time.
James. Good point. He is so unhinged by the idea of anyone disagreeing with him he has to accuse them of generating AI opinions. His previous MO was to belittle and insult the intelligence of anyone who dared to hold a differing view.
Sorry, Tracy, it’s not an accusation. James has freely said he uses AI to generate his comments.
Ai was used once to address the volume of your opinions concerning the green tile pub.
Something you should be held accountable for, legally
AI has been used multiple times, on a variety of topics and articles. It is particularly easy to spot, right down to the specific LLM you’re using. Phrases like “it’s not this – it is this” are textbook. Lying is not a particularly good look, James. Like I said previously, nothing wrong with using AI to help your writing, but when you rely on it to write whole paragraphs, you have to be critical, because it does make flawed arguments. 16th time I’ve explained this to you.
Anyway, back to the original discussion, there was no suggestion of using Community Payback for the long-term; as an acute resource, they could be used to support a hard-hitting, short-term, clean-up of the city.
I might as well stay on the streets.
Benjamin, you keep presenting yourself as if you’re some kind of authority on this, but you’re not an auditor, nor do you have any relevant professional experience—you’re just expressing opinions like everyone else here.
There’s nothing wrong with having a view, but repeatedly framing your arguments as if they’re objectively correct, while dismissing others as flawed or “AI-generated,” doesn’t actually strengthen your point—it just shuts down discussion.
People are talking about real lives being disrupted, not just theoretical “efficient use” of housing stock. You might see it as a numbers exercise, but for residents, it’s about stability, community, and being forced out of homes they’ve had for decades.
If you want a proper debate, engage with what people are actually saying instead of trying to discredit them.
The kind of stability you mention is not managable from one housing area to another so there has to be splits, not huge wide gaps but something has to give, the buildings were never intended for more than 50 years life span so the chances of a forever home were never great so moves have to be done. Unless you have a spare complete housing plot of 100 homes changes will happen, big for some not so much for others, I’d be happy still having a home after the current one is dilapedated and then move in somewhere decent.