The Liberal Democrats have criticised the three political parties on Brighton and Hove City Council for using a “secret process” to choose the developer for the King Alfred Leisure Centre site.
Michael Wilbur, who chairs the Brighton and Hove Lib Dems, said: “It is outrageous that councillors from the Labour, Conservative and Green parties have agreed to a conspiracy of silence.
“The lack of transparency in allowing local residents to evaluate the merits of the competing bids is quite insulting.
“This does not happen with major schemes in other cities and shows that the local councillors have a contempt for democracy.
“We are keen to see redevelopment at the King Alfred but Hove residents must have the chance to air their views.
“It is time for the council to come clean and make the details of the bids known immediately.
“Without transparency we have no way of evaluating whether this development helps solve Brighton’s housing crisis.”
565 new homes, it’s in the public domain already. Quite a contribution.
Who exactly are the Brighton and Hove Lib Dems? After all they secured no support here at the national or local elections (at least not enough to get anybody elected).
Odd that the Lib Dems are suddenly concerned about housing supply whilst busily objecting to housing developments elsewhere in Brighton and Hove.
This smacks of opportunistic politics rather than any genuine concern around housing in Brighton and Hove.
So will the LibDems now reveal the confidential legal advice about the Marina Act to which they were privy?
What an almighty nerve they have even bringing attention to themselves.
It was the Liberal Democrats who ENABLED consent at the planning committee on March 23 2007 which created the precedent for accepting 751 flats up to 26 storeys high on the King Alfred site.
The sole LibDem on Planning that day – David Watkins – supported Labour to give them the one vote majority.
Why would he do that? Well the local election was six weeks away and the LibDems only had Brunswick and Adelaide (David Watkins ward) and needed to keep it. Labour were a threat. Labour duly moved an expendable candidate with zero history into that ward for the election guaranteed not to win – thereby ensuring the ward stayed LibDem.
The LibDems are an embarrassment.
In Hove last year the LibDems’ MP candidate, whose name I do not recall if I ever knew it, was also standing the same day as a Councillor somewhere. He never appeared in Hove until the Count, at which he looked shifty. At least the other two constituencies’ candidates turned up at meetings. I thought the Pavilion one rather good, and said to him, “you’re in the wrong party!” He had the good grace to reply, “you’re not the first to say that!”
All this ‘pony-tail pulling’ still does not change the fact the decision was made behind closed doors. How may palms being greased again I wonder…
OK so it may be the pot calling the kettle black but that still doesn’t excuse the fact that little is known about the two designs and no ones talking about the plans to offset the impact on the school, transport and social care/gp side.