An application by former tenants of New England House to have the landmark building designated an asset of community value has been rejected by Brighton and Hove City Council.
The news emerged yesterday (Tuesday 28 July) at a Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting called by Green councillor Sue Shanks.
Councillor Shanks was not at the meeting but her call for urgent scrutiny was supported by fellow Greens, the two Brighton and Hove Independents and Independent councillor Samer Bagaeen.
The called for a review of the decision to sell the building – a move that was agreed by the council’s cabinet on Thursday 17 July.
At the meeting almost a fortnight ago, senior councillors heard from former directors of the digital trade body Wired Sussex, representing the Friends of New England House, in New England Street, Brighton.
They spoke out about the prospect of a sale going ahead while they awaited the outcome of an application to designate the building an asset of community value.
But yesterday, the Labour deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor said that planning officials had refused the application because New England House’s contribution was economic rather than community-based.
Green councillor Ollie Sykes put the case for a rethink after the sale decision was made as part of the council’s “asset management plan” to raise £55 million and reduce day-to-day running costs.
Officials considered, for example, whether to retrofit or demolish and rebuild New England House. But the cost could involve an outlay of at least £67 million – and up to £97 million.
The last of more than 100 business tenants moved out last month, affecting more than 700 workers.
They left after “an independent fire engineer concluded that New England House presented an intolerable fire risk in its existing condition” in November 2024.
Councillor Sykes said: “To say you can’t do anything with New England House for less than £67 million seems to be a bit of a stretch.
“So maybe it’s just a question of reminding us about the previous papers, previous options and was there a minimum option that combined with community involvement.”
Councillor Sykes said that the many business tenants had contributed to the wider “economic ecosystem” of Brighton and Hove and any sale was likely to affect the business community across Sussex.
He asked whether the new Sussex and Brighton Strategic Authority should have been considered before agreeing to dispose of the building.
The authority is due to work with an elected mayor whose remit will include economic growth – and over the next 30 years, led by the mayor, the strategic authority has a £1.3 billion budget.
Councillor Taylor said that he commissioned a “lessons learned” report and had discussed the issues with New England House at length at Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee and cabinet meetings.
He said: “The impact of social, environmental and economic benefits can also be drawn on the best consideration.
“So in any asset disposal, it will be a balance of purely financial against other social, environmental economic factors.”
Labour councillor Ty Goddard, who previously served as cabinet adviser for economic development, said that the issues with New England House had been “going on for decades”.
Councillor Goddard said that the £4.9 million received as part of the City Deal to create an independent tech cluster was a “wonderful dream” but failing to refurbish of New England House was a “missed opportunity”.
He: “I felt it was the most frustrating time of my brief. I felt the officers were glib. I felt they were opaque. I felt they didn’t take New England House seriously.
“I felt that a lot of the issues that had come out of Grenfell were not properly addressed but this is not what the call in is about.”
Councillor Goddard said that the cabinet was put in a difficult position of having to decide whether to invest in a dangerous building – but he was convinced that the sale decision was right.
He suggested including the potential for “asset of community value” status being written into a development brief for the site.
The long term investment into New England house would be far more profitable for not only the council but our local economy and in turn small local business.
Whoever considers these uneducated decisions at the council needs to open their eyes to the bigger, longer term picture.
Whilst I know it’s controversial… King Alfred should be sold instead but have no doubt that the ‘Hove actually’ brigade will kick up such a fuss!
Funnily enough, the initial thoughts were to sell the King Alfred and use the revenue generated from the sale to develop on another piece of land at a better value. The barrier was restrictive covenants and a lot of public outcry.
Considering the significant costs mentioned to retrofit, my thoughts are that the council would be waiting for a long time to see a return on that kind of investment, and because the council don’t have a lot of breathing room in their finances, I wonder if that would be affordable in the short-term?
They will flog it to a BTR developer.
It’s clearly a risk to pour residents money into a project with an uncertain future. Sounds familiar Sue Shanks and all in the Green Party, the conservative group and a smattering of independents.
For the sake of clarity, I360!
You could find the most depressing, rat-filled, run-down council-owned building in Brighton and there will be a bunch of lefty nutters will who will say the council needs to just put some more money into it and everything will be fine. There isn’t a magic money tree hidden in Hove Town Hall!
Hmm, unfortunately that is an opinion that is often shared with both sides of politics. It’s your more centralist, pragmatic-types that tend to temper the idealistic views with…well, pragmatism!
Interesting
This is economic vandalism from the Labour Party. To not even give the community a chance to attempt to put forward a plan shows that they have no idea the value of community assets. Instead of a vibrant and prosperous community of creative businesses, we’ll get a glass box owned by some multinational that will want to HQ their operation in Brighton to prove their progressive credentials.
Nothing is stopping them from a community organisation putting forward a plan; they just don’t have the mandatory extended time to do so that an ACV would afford them. But that also doesn’t mean that if a plan was proposed, but needed a bit of time to solidify, that it won’t be considered.