Creatives and former tenants of New England House are launching a bid to buy it as the council prepares to sell it off.
Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet is being asked to rubber-stamp putting the ageing towerblock on the market when it meets next Thursday.
The block was closed last year after a fire report uncovered serious safety risks which would cost an estimated £26 million to fix.
A new report going before next week’s cabinet recommends putting it on the market, saying the alternative options of refurbishing it or demolishing it and building a new block would be too expensive.
But the Friends of New England House say they applied in May to have it designated an asset of community value – which if approved would mean they would have a year to raise money to put in their own offer before it went out to the open market. The council would not be obliged to accept any offer.
A cabinet report published in March last year said the effective value of the block was £0 because of the costs of making it safe.
The group submitted its application in May, and the eight week deadline for it to be considered is on Monday. However, it is not mentioned in the cabinet report published this week – the council said even if it was approved, this would not change the content of the report.
Group member Jenni Lloyd, who was a director of Wired Sussex, a former tenant of the building, said: “If the ACV application is approved the Friends want to explore taking the building into community ownership/management and refurbishing it as a centre for creative and cultural production.
“We’re inspired by Hastings Commons, the Onion Collective’s East Quay in Watchet, and Nudge Community Builders work on Union Street in Plymouth.
“One option we’re discussing is whether they’d be open to a community-led response to the development brief they propose, in which case we could buy and potentially do a phased refurb, like they did at the Observer building in Hastings.
“As the owner of the building the council will have had to notify itself of community interest. I’m surprised / disappointed that this isn’t mentioned in the cabinet paper.
“The council says it recognises the value of the creative and cultural sector to the city and acknowledges the need for space to support and help it grow.
“The proposed buildings on Queens Road do not offer the kind of making space New England House provided – they are office space (and dingy, unloved ones at that). Makers need messy space, where noise, dust etc will be accommodated.
“There is no mention of investment being made in these replacement spaces to make them suitable and attractive to creators and makers – instead the paper suggests they will be marketed from August.
“There has been no public engagement with any of this. The paper demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the value of New England House and of the needs of the creative sector.”
Last year’s report said the risk of selling the site would be a loss of light industrial space for the city’s creative industry.
This week’s report proposes making vacant space at Phoenix House in West Street and Lyndean House in Queens Road available to creative tenants. It doesn’t specify whether rents would be comparable to those charged at New England House, which in 2024/2025 were an average of £15 per sq ft.
It gives the area of office space available at New England House in square metres (16,000 sqm) and the area available at the other two office blocks in square feet (30,000 sq ft).
If both were quoted using the same measurement, it would be clearer that the proposed replacement office space is about a fifth of what was available at New England House.
A council spokesman said: “The building has not yet been given the status of an asset of community value. If this designation was applied to NEH the content of the report would not change, and the council would follow the requirements of the designation in disposing of the building.
“The council considers the value of the building to be higher than nil and would expect to receive a significant capital receipt for the building.
“It is an accepted convention to use metric measurements for design and imperial measurements for sales and lettings. The two different types of dimensions given are due to the different purposes.”
“We will be seeking the best rent offer based on an assessment of both the financial offer and quality response using a standard quality scoring format and questions.
“We anticipate responses and bids to propose how the space will be used with refurbishments and adaptations undertaken by the applicant.”
Being creative does not excuse building owners from responsibilty for buildings they own. If this group buys it and allows public access by way of renting out space, exhibitions, housing then the building still has to be of a certain standard and safe for the public/people entering or using the building, it also has to be insured and maintained for its intended purpose, has anyone thought further than “this idea” ??? Buying the building is relatively cheap, modifying and repurposing costs millions, then the safety checks along with building control.
As must as I like the spirit of keeping this building as a community asset, it would need a significant amount of funding to retrofit to make it safe, and that’d be a difficult challenge to fund for a Friends of group. I was reading through the FSO’s report too, seems like there is a lot of critical work to do there before you could open it, even partially.
https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-11/NEH%20-%20Risk%20Summary%20Document%20%5BP03%5D_0.pdf
Or maybe they could rent it from the council with the main portion of rent going towards repairs to make the building feasable ??? It would still need financing though to make it workable. Where does “creativity” end and reality take over ??? still needs a lot of money from somewhere to keep it standing.
Considering the building is effectively condemned right now, they’d be paying rent for a while whilst not being able to use the building until it was retrofitted. I’m not sure you’d get a lot of creative groups willing or financially capable to do that.
As a building engineer and property director who lives close by, my view of New England House is a unique hybrid industrial/commercial space and a rarity.
I doubt the fire remediation estimate is accurate and would love to support any group intending to preserve what is a fabulous construction.
There does seem to be an attitude within the council of New England House being only a problem rather than a genuine piece of the city’s heritage, and as such presenting an opportunity to build on that status. You have to wonder if the work has been done to establish whether funding can be found to get NEH functional again if the council were to allow community ownership to happen via a community asset transfer. Many characterless multi storey buildings have gone up in the city in the last few decades yet this unique building is likely to be demolished through what seems like a lack of imagination and unwillingness to think beyond the next political cycle and short term budget pressures.
In Lancashire there was a moment a few years ago when a construction as magnificent as Preston Bus Station was demolished for similar reasons but public pressure made a difference and now that building has moved into a 21st century phase. Let’s hope that kind of spirit and determination makes its way to our city and New England House is saved.
Does anyone else think that a deal is already virtually done and this asset will be flogged off at a knockdown price? It will be shrouded by scaffolding and planning permission pushed through to enable someone else to profiteer from it. Meanwhile all the councillors will be on nice holidays as they are made redundant by the new Mayor.
Why waste money on getting an old broken out of date site with known problems back up to code. Money could be way better spent on a new location that is already within modern fire regs. Hanging on to an old address makes no sense.
Back up to code ??
You must be mixing up your sites, this is in Brighton, England.
The not upto code one of which you speak is likely in New Brighton, in the USA
Is your real name Dick ??? or maybe you’re still in transition from Stateside ???
It’s a good point, Thomas. The cost to retrofit was the debate when the building was first condemned.
But it hasn’t been officially “condemned ” Benjamin, which is odd, if the building is as faulty as claimed.
The council want to sell it seems to be the real agenda. Get it off their hands.
As for fire failure, the biggest cause of death in Grenfell was trapped residents phoning the Fire Brigade and being advised to “stay put” and await a rescue that never came because the building was too fiery for the emergency services to get near or helicopters to hover over. Yet all the government has done is change that advice to “Stay safe”.
As well as working on the assumption that fire door closers and fire doors were still where they should have been, they weren’t, and a fire inspection after the renovations was never done because THAT council veto’d fire services inspection by choice, THAT council had choices and options, they chose badly and people paid with their lives, that was one of the major problems with Grenfell,
Sprinkler systems were invented in Victorian times, yet high rise blocks are being built to this day with no sprinkler systems!
Here Tracy, you might find this article answers that particular question. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40293035
Though I wish them luck, I think they are fighting a lost cause.
New England House is well past it’s sell by date!
There must surely be more suitable premises these people could have?
There are empty units every where industrial estates, some of which have remained empty since being built!