The future of New England House will not include space for the creative businesses which have previously flourished there, the council has announced.
In a press release published this morning strewn with opaque management-speak, the council announced it was “unlocking creative workspace” by renting out Phoenix House in West Street and Lyndean House in Queens Road from August.
These buildings were bought by the council for £6.8 million in 2019 and £5.6 million in January 2020 – shortly before the pandemic led to demand for city centre offices plummeting.
The council says more than 30,000 square feet of vacant workspace will be advertised.
However, details of the private partnership for the regeneration of the “New England area” will not be published until later today, meaning journalists cannot yet report the fuller context.
The press release says the papers – which will go before cabinet next Thursday – will outline the council’s asset strategy.
It says the council is also starting work on a development brief for the regeneration of the area around New England House – but does not say whether this involves knocking down the block or refurbishing it.
Instead, it says the brief “would allow the council to seek development partners capable of delivering new employment space, housing and wider regeneration benefits while protecting the area’s role as a hub for enterprise and innovation.”
It quotes deputy council leader Jacob Taylor: “By promoting the available space at Phoenix House and Lyndean House to established creative organisations first, we can support these businesses now and then unlock access to freelancers, individual artists and their networks.
“While I understand the significant part New England House has played in many local creative businesses, the reality is that a council-funded rebuild or retrofit is likely to involve too much financial risk for taxpayers.
“Instead, we are pursuing a pragmatic approach to the long-term redevelopment of the site that will support jobs, protect public money and enable regeneration of the wider area that creates new employment space and homes in the future.”
Let’s face it; they earmarked this for sale and redevelopment as housing many years ago. There is no need to sugarcoat this open secret as we all understand the fragile economic situation that many years of bad decisions, planning and underinvestment have produced.
New England House is beyond saving and the authority doesn’t have the financial muscle to knock it down never mind redevelop it, ergo it is another asset that must be stripped, sorry realised for investment elsewhere.
The sooner that, and the mayflower flats / carpark are flattened the better I say. Bye bye 1960s concrete mess.
I’m interesting in seeing what the fuller context is. It’s a prime piece of land regardless, and I’m sure people will want to see a good return on whatever it ends up being used for.
I am interested in seeing the full context when the private partnership details are released. It’s a prime piece of land, regardless, and people will be expecting a good return on whatever the future of this area ends up being.
How ironic that Councillor Taylor is considering a ‘retrofit’ on a 1970s carbuncle which was probably only built to last 40-50 years and may genuinely be at the end of its life. Why is the King Alfred not being considered for a retrofit, which is built of solid brick and was built to last a good deal longer?
“…a council-funded rebuild or retrofit [of New England House] is likely to involve too much financial risk for taxpayers.”
Kind Alfred has a costed ROI, and retrofitting of the leisure centre would not provide this, according to the reports, would be the basic answer to your question. 😊
In relation to the King Alfred, you are correct that the reports do say that refurbishment does not offer a positive return on investment – but they compare a 10-year refurbishment against a 40-year new build, which is not a like-for-like comparison. The £13.98m scope was deliberately limited to life-extension only. A comprehensive refurbishment specified to last 40 years on equal terms was never costed or modelled.
The reports also confirm the new build’s benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 1.74 is, in the council’s own words, ‘largely due to the increased capital receipt from disposal of part of the existing site for residential development.’ The refurbishment BCR looks poorer partly because it doesn’t involve selling off public seafront land. Although that element has been removed from the planning application – deliberately in order to make it easier to get through.
And let’s not even mention the fact that the BCR of 1.74 was calculated on a project cost of £47m and the project now costs £65m and the BCR figure has never been updated. It is not quite the straightforward answer the smiley face suggests.
Where is the costed ROI on the King Alfred Benjamin? If it exists, it is based on NO full structural survey of the complex by independent retrofit experts and a financial model which has changed more than once and is part-based on admission income from a new sports hub which would provide greatly reduced capacity to the existing, so even if admission prices were doubled, it would almost certainly represent reduced income in real terms. Moreover why would Deputy Council Leader Taylor be advocating a retrofit option for New England House when he claims retrofit would only ‘last ten years’ for the King Alfred?
I see the king Alfred has become the new, vally gardens round about. It’s ugly, it’s past it’s selling by date, stop moaning about change
We have covered this particular aspect before in extreme detail on a previous article, Toto. Can I just point you back to that conversation?
We did cover it, Benjamin, and you said there were errors in my facts and interpretation that you would ‘gently push back on later.’ You never did. You then did the same again on another thread.
But do feel free to point me to whenever it is you think you covered this? Because the points I’ve made above come directly from reading the papers that are on the Council website e.g. on the various Cabinet discussions on this issue. I’m very happy to correct any factual inaccuracies – but I believe this is a factual account of what the council papers say. If you have an issue with the papers then you need to take that up with the council not me.
Again, I’m going to have to point you back to the previous discussion after that, where we talked about that as well, which you’ve just acknowledged. And most importantly, your generation hasn’t picked up on the phrase “basic answer”.
Benjamin – you are going to have to help me out with a more specific reference. I’ve looked back at the following three stories we’ve interacted on in relation to the King Alfred and there isn’t any where you have engaged substantively with the points about the business case:
– Date set to decide £65m King Alfred plan
– King Alfred spurs senior councillors to take on critics
– More details of kids’ pool features at King Alfred released after families object
In my post above I pointed out that the retrofit assessment was only based on a 10 year life extension, the ROI for the new leisure centre is underpinned by the sale of the land for high rise flats, and the BCR wasn’t updated after a significant cost increase. Which one of those points would you like to push back on? Because they all come directly from reading the council’s documents.
I’m happy to keep going on the substance whenever you are – but ‘we covered it before’ isn’t the same as answering the point.
Whoosh.
If that’s a ‘whoosh,’ feel free to explain what I’ve missed. The three points are still there, still from the council’s own papers, still unanswered.
If that’s a ‘whoosh,’ feel free to explain what I’ve missed. The three points are still there, still from the council’s own papers, still unanswered.
New England House will be sold to a private developer probably backed by a Hedge Fund.
Likely use, either another BTR ,”Build to Rent” like York and Elder or a residential development for individual sales.
Sling out the creatives that made Brighton unique and fill it with overpriced units that make the money men happy.
Finally. Also can vantage point be blown up and replaced. These 1960s horror towers are really grim and need replacing with flats ASAP.
It’s near the station and near the London road mess. So perfect place for flats. Once built then the next step would be to rebuild the block from richer sounds to the old Lloyds bank.
What I find most depressing about this is the lack of imagination, the lack of will to try something more innovative and more inspiring than what will likely end up being York & Elder II. Just 30 miles down the coast in Hastings you have Rock House and the Observer Building, community owned, mixed use, high rise buildings with significant challenges that probably make them a more difficult redevelopment project than NEH. But through a combination of incredible commitment, hard work and community led innovation, a coherent response to a changing urban environment is taking shape, drawing in millions of pounds of sorely needed investment in a town with a much lower profile and general income level than Brighton and Hove. I wonder i any of the decision makers involved in deciding NEH’s fate have ever visited the Observer Building or spoken to the collective at Hastings Commons, which owns the OB?
I know council finances are really tough and the challenges of that are immense but selling off the family silver does mean that eventually you run out of trinkets to sell but the family still needs someone to live and work.
The current council appear to be operating a ‘scorched earth’ policy. Asset strip the city, plunge it into massive debt and cause as much damage as they can while in office. Then once voted out, they’ll just move on and do it all over again somewhere else.
I think the important thing to consider with that is calling it “selling the family silver” misses a crucial aspect. That empty buildings cost money to the council, whilst one that is full and being used generate funds for it, via things like business rates.
People are so negative, the council should be given some slack, as they are always so good with money and investing, in fact I’ve just heard that any day now they, the council, will be exchanging these properties for a consignment of beans, but not just any beans, these are magic beans