THE URBED DIALOGUE CONTINUES…

Download as Word document

SOME RESPONSES TO URBED from people on the BUDD email list: 1 Thanks for your email re URBED and their role etc - which I read with interest even though it's not what I'm paid to be doing here ...! I won't try to comment on the substance of the Stn Site issues as I've not been involved - and can't promise that I will - but here's a quick response re tactics (or is it strategy?). Don't waste time on the monkey - go for the organ-grinder. 2) How are councillors threatened by the feelings you say were expressed at the Comm. Planning Event or are expressed by BUDD? Where's the proof - or convincing (ie worrying) hints - that this is going to cost them votes, speed defections to Greens etc ?? What position does N Laine Community Assocn take? Sorry, I know it's annoying when I go on about showing legitimacy, being visibly representative etc but - until politicians see it, they will go on dodging the issue. And without (as a minimum) Seven Dials councillors getting nervous about it, the organ-grinder - viz ultimately the Council - ain't going to pay any attention. 3) Continue to reject - contemptuously - that outrageous but all too familiar demand that if you (BUDD/other objectors) can't do the Council's job for it by preparing an alternative development brief, then you should shut up. How well I know that one ... But you've made the point in your email, with the Coin St reference. Absolutely. If 'partnership' means anything, what the Council will want from the community (once, ahem, we are clear about who that is ...) is ideas/sense of priorities - so it can then supply the professional resources to realise those ideas as a brief for concrete negotiations etc etc. Back to the organ-grinder again - in the end it is the local authority that determines whether decision-making is democratic or not - there is no substitute Hi Sara Well...I'm sure David is one of the good guys, but this whole thing suffers from the fact that he does not have to live with it. Why does he not put his considerable talents to work saving the London Road (because no one has any cash for that - certainly not B&H Council). I'm sure his supermarket development will be the nicest, cuddly thing. But are we going to get all the car-sharing, free buses and home delivery kiosks? Our council is not visionary, they are New Labour and will follow central govt example -central govt is completely lacking in principle - draw your own conclusions.(sorry rambling a bit there) There is an element of Soviet style central planning in all this. He seems to be saying that this supermarket scheme is the sort of thing they want to impose on us because they think it's a good way to move forward. While this may be true (i.e if there is going to be a supermarket development, then this is the way to do it) it overlooks one important point - the people of Brighton do not want a supermarket on this site. If URBED, who are at the centre of things in a financial sense, and have the big guns on their side are having trouble 'developing a dialogue' what do you think it feels like for those of us who have been marginalised as a nuisance that has to be suffered, rather than the group who represent the only mandated opinion of the public. ( I got a bit lost at the end of that sentence, but you know what I mean). And who is it they are having trouble 'dialogue-ing' with? If it's BUDD, then I would be more than happy to join in a discussion with them. He seems to have lost sight of the fact that if even a 'compromise' supermarket is built, it will bring extra traffic into town, take business away from the London Road and take the profits out of Brighton. Of course BUDD will compromise, no individual's vision is going to be realised. It's only the large retailer / traffic generator / London Road killer that is not wanted. If the site ends up as a leisure centre, nature reserve or housing estate (etc.) that will be a real compromise for someone. Sorry this is a bit loose but I have to rush as I am pretending to be at work (busy, busy).     From Selma Montford, Brighton Society - her comments on David’s email in BOLD 14/2/00 >>Thank you for your email last week. As I said in my other email I wanted>to leave it a few days before replying because it deserved a considered>response. However I have been tied up in work elsewhere and it has taken>me longer to reply than I had hoped. You raise a number of points that I>wanted to respond to. In the spirit of your email this is a personal>response:>>You say that we sounded defensive. If we were it was because we are>unused to being set against a community group and it is a position that>we don't feel particularly comfortable with. However this does not mean>that our arguments are 'fictions' constructed to justify our position.>We believe in working in partnership with the community and do so in>virtually all of our other work. This does not however mean that the>community has a monopoly on being right. Who said they did? BUDD mentioned at the meeting the other night that they might not have held so hard to the 'no supermarket' view had it not been for the response of the CPE. If we believe that the>community view is mistaken we will argue our case. This is normally a>very creative, even enjoyable process in which arguments on all sides>are tested and more often than not a consensus will emerge. It is not my experience that it is an enjoyable experience, when there is a lot at stake the tension is high. Our>frustration in Brighton is that it has not really been possible to>develop this dialogue either at the CPE or the working group. We would>therefore welcome the opportunity of a direct dialogue with BUDD. If dialogue was not possible at the CPE it was the fault of the consultants conducting the event and they should not have been paid £90,000. (in fact we think it was £50, 000 to include the writing of the Planning Brief but the point stands — Sara) >>You accuse us of being hired guns parroting the Sainsburys line. If this >was URBED's approach we might have made some money over the years - >however it is not. Our position is that we have an agenda - the one set >out in our book. We make clear to clients that we will not argue>whatever line they want to put forward (which is what many consultants>do). We always make clear that we will walk away from a job if it>contradicts our central philosophy. In answer to Ben's question we would>have loved to work for BUDD and would have done so for very little>money. However our only income is fees and we can't work for nothing.>You might argue that we should not be working for developers. However,>as I said at the working group, our concern is to change the way that>towns and cities are built and there is no more effective way of doing>this than to influence directly the organisations who have done the>damage in the past. Are they influencing the developers in this case, or are they being influenced by them? >>As to our characterisation of BUDD's position. I am not sure that I want>to defend Nic's comments about other opinion because I am always>suspicious about appeals to what the vast majority think. I don't doubt>the support that BUDD has. However it was clear from the discussions>that I had with many BUDD members at the CPE that opinions have become>entrenched. Substitute the word 'principled' for 'entrenched'. Such is the feeling against Sainsburys that pro-supermarket >arguments are dismissed and those putting them forward branded as 'sell >outs' (as indeed you do to us in your email). This does not seem to me>to reflect what is a complex argument or indeed make it easy to engage>in the dialogue that you seek. Of course I realise that this is how>community campaigns work but it does raise the issue faced by all such>campaigns - when to compromise and when to hold out for everything and>risk losing all. We have not reached this point and may never do so. My view is that there can be no compromise on a supermarket with car parking. The compromise would be on whether to support an enlarged Sainsbury's on the London Road frontage, with no extra car parking, personally that is as far as I would be prepared to go. My point was not, so much, that you should compromise>now but that you had got yourself into a position when any form of>compromise seemed inconceivable. No compromise on a new supermarket with car parking away from the London Road frontage, I would have thought is the right view. >>The real issue is not however about URBED or BUDD but about what happens>on the site. That is right, I have said that we are involved because we believe that>the scheme is in line with our core philosophy. Let me take a moment to>describe why I believe this and to highlight the areas where I agree>with you. How can that extra car parking be sustainable? >>First of all the easy bit. I hope that you agree that most of our scheme>has been developed in line with the briefing material that BUDD prepared>- that was certainly what we tried to do. We have developed a dense,>mixed-use urban scheme that ties in with, and continues the character>and feel of North Laine and London Road. This may raise small areas of>disagreement but the issue that divides us is the supermarket. The main issue is the supermarket, but I think that the so-called mixed-use development is too lumpy and does not tie 'in with, and continue the character >and feel of North Laine and London Road.' >>I agree with you that North Laine is a tremendous area and that its>character is formed by the small independent shops and cafes that>populate the area. Not to mention its scale and streetscape, its residents and workers. Aside from the traffic issue (which I will come back>to) I do not believe that the scheme threatens this character. I think it does. London>Road is dominated far more by multiples and while it is not doing that>badly - compared to shopping streets elsewhere in the country - it is>clear that it is declining. It may be unpalatable but it is true that>the decline of streets like London Road is because they no longer >attract the main car-borne food shopping trade from an increasing >proportion of the community. I do not agree with the above statement at all. I think that the decline of London Road needs to be very carefully analysed as I think that there are a number of factors that each play a part. I even spoke to BUDD members at the CPE who>admitted that they drove to an out-of-town supermarket once a week and>only used London Road for top-up and convenience shopping. This is bad>for all sorts of reasons. It generates car use leading to congestion,>energy use and pollution, it harms independent businesses in traditional>centres and it excludes all those people without a car who have to put>up with higher prices and poorer quality in declining centres. So they admit that supermarkets with car parking provision generate car use, congestion and pollution and damage independent businesses, as would their proposal. >>What should we do in the face of these problems? We could take a dark>green line and argue that supermarkets shouldn't exist and that people >shouldn't use their cars. The above is a silly statement as unfortunately they already exist, but we do not have to add to them just because they add the greatest value for the site owner and the developer, which is the sole reason that this supermarket has been proposed. This is all well and good on a personal basis >but is unlikely to happen nationally. We have therefore argued for >smaller supermarkets in locations where they can reinforce local>centres, where they are accessible to public transport and can be used>by people without a car. This is exactly what we have already. Furthermore we have argued that they should not>be single use developments with large car parks but integrated into>mixed-use schemes with housing and other uses. it is impossible to integrate a use like a supermarket with car parking on any scale. In this context it is>difficult to see how we could argue against the current scheme. You>will, no doubt, argue that Sainsburys should therefore stay where they>are but the fact is that that store has not attracted people away from >the out-of-town stores whereas the new store will. This is what it is all about from Sainsbury's point of view, increasing market share. >>Turning to the traffic issue. Here you have a valid point and one that>needs to be addressed. Traffic would be generated by a number of uses on>the site as well as the existing commuter car part at the station. The>situation on New England Street is also exacerbated by the scheme to>take traffic off London Road and yet the loss of this traffic has seen a>drop in London Road's trade. According to the Town Centre Manager at the Sustainable Traffic Forum last week there is no proof that the London Road shops have suffered as a result of the London Road traffic scheme as no survey has been carried out. The issue of traffic is open for>discussion and we are very interested in forms of traffic reduction for>all types of development. The following is a list of some of the things>that might be possible:>>Home zone: A traffic scheme that turned the whole of North Laine into>a Home zone - 20 mph limit, local traffic only - no through routes,>pedestrian priority.> Good idea, but not dependent on this scheme for a supermarket. >Constrained parking: The parking standards in our scheme are about>half what the council would normally insist upon. The supermarket has>200 places presently where as a store of this size would normally have>350-400. On an edge of centre site? The same is true of the housing and hotel.>>Car share schemes: We are working with AMEC in Manchester to develop>car share schemes in mixed-use developments. These would be run by car>hire companies and would mean that residents would not need to own a car>but could get access to a vehicle at short notice including electric>vehicles and bikes. Good let's have a car free housing development, the one in Edinburgh has been over-subscribed. >>Home delivery schemes: whereby people can drop off their shopping from>both the supermarket and London Road at a kiosk for delivery This could be organised from the present Sainsbury's >>Public transport: A free hoppa bus between London Road, the >supermarket and the station. This would allow public transport to serve >the whole site without taking the main bus routes off London Road. We should talk to Roger French about this. >>Bikes: Bike parking and hire (as part of the car share scheme)>>My feeling is that together these measures could start to address the>traffic issue although a lot more work needs to be done. These issues may help, but we would start with the big disadvantage of 200 extra car parking spaces. >>You also raise the issue of development phasing and the guarantees that>exist of the whole scheme not being completed once the supermarket is>open. While I am sure that the developers do not intend to do this you>are right to be concerned. It is important for this to be tied up in the>development agreement, and planning permissions (assuming we get that >far!). it is true a condition could be put on the permission that the supermarket would not be allowed to open before the rest of the development was complete, but that is not a good reason for having a supermarket. >>My guess is that I won't have convinced you but I do hope that we can at>least continue the dialogue. By all means put this onto your Web site>and lets draw other people into the discussion. I would also be happy,>if you think that it would be useful, to come and speak to BUDD and to>debate these issues with members. I hope that we are not as far apart in>our positions as it may seem. I think that URBED should be invited to come and speak to BUDD, The meeting would need to be carefully chaired. What did you think about having a football stadium without any car parking near the station end of the site, as mentioned in Rob Stephenson's letter in the Argus last week? NLCA would not like it. This Sainsbury's scheme is old fashioned, big supermarket spenders are moving onto the internet and do not need a supermarket with car park, all Sainsbury's need to cater for them is a warehouse somewhere, but not in the centre of a town which is on the edge of this island. Selma--->The postal address of PLACES for PEOPLE & its journal STREETWISE is:c/o ETP, 9 South Road, Brighton, BN1 6SB, UK. Phone/Fax: +44 (0)1273 542660 email: streetwise@pobox.com Website: http://pobox.com/~streetwise     From Keith Taylor, BUDD member and Green Party Councillor for St. Peter’s Ward 16.02.2000 Dear David Rudlin, I read both the letter that Sara Bragg sent to you, and your reply. I thought the your comments were considered and well put, but it won’t come as any surprise to you that I disagree with most of them. The most obvious problem with Urbed devising a scheme for Brighton is that you don’t know the place. You have arrived, trying to impose a scheme on the town without first bothering to engage with the community, which is why Urbed are perceived to be ‘set against the community’. The public view of Urbed is that you have been hired to get an unwanted supermarket scheme foisted onto the town. I will be the first to admit that the current idea for the development is an improvement on the first applications, and it is a matter of sincere regret that the supermarket issue is still being talked about. As far as the overwhelming majority of people are concerned the debate is over - it is not needed and not wanted. At your presentation Nick Falk seemed to be saying that the CPE wasn’t truly representative of public opinion- this is simply rubbish. The event was organised by the Council’s consultants - not any pressure group, it was open to everyone, and publicised all over Brighton & Hove. I note your point about community groups talking themselves into a corner, where any compromise could be regarded as a failure, but I can assure you that this is not the case with BUDD. The public interest in and enthusiasm for imaginative developments without massive traffic generators like another unwanted superstore Is just as high as it has always been. As a Ward Councillor for the area I should know — the subject crops up time and time again in conversations I have with constituents. Underpinning your argument appears to be the statement ‘it may be unpalatable but it is true streets like London Road decline because they no longer attract the main car-borne food shopping trade from an increasing proportion of the community’. This conviction presumably leads you to feel authorised to ‘change the way that towns and cities are built’. You have developed a concept, an overall vision of what you believe to be city’s of the future. And it appears this philosophy is applied in every scenario you appraise. Where you have gone wrong with Brighton is that so much of your rationale either does not apply or does not meet the challenges that face the town. London Road together with the Open Market is an established shopping centre - located at the hub of the bus network it is ideally suited for non car shoppers. You quite possibly don’t know that Brighton is one of the few towns in the country where there is a steady 5-10% increase in bus use per annum. Therefore far from ‘ an ever increasing proportion of the community who shop by car’, we see there are in fact more bus users -ergo the need to strengthen shopping facilities needed to suit them. In addition it would pay us to remember that something like 50-60% of shoppers in London Road travel by means other than the private car. I believe that London Road and the Open Market should be revitalised (preferably with your clients playing their part), to renew and strengthen their function as a shopping centre. It is in no ones interest (apart from your clients) to shift the shopping focus up the hill to a new site. Furthermore your rationale appears not to question your imperative that car-borne shoppers must be catered for as a priority. You claim proudly that the new store will attract shoppers away from the out of town stores - but if those shoppers arrive by car then you are repeating the out of town mistakes in the town centre. This whole reasoning is short-termist and unsustainable. Fine if you do develop home deliveries, it’s a good idea (one which has been dropped by Sainsbury’s in the M25 belt incidentally) but then why do you need a brand new 25000 sq supermarket? Nick Falk misses the point when he says the supermarket is only 10% of the site - the important consideration is that it will attract more traffic (by your own admission). This should be seen in conjunction with recently released figures from the London Road Traffic Management Scheme Before & After Study which shows (1998) Nitrogen Dioxide levels at New England Street already above the government targets for 2005. In the same study as a result of the LRTMS traffic in New England Street is shown to have increased by 27%.Your suggestions for mitigating the effects of traffic increase are like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. You appear to have misunderstood Council policy when you make the point that the Council would insist on twice the number of car parking spaces that those you have included in your scheme. The current policy document, (Brighton &Hove Local Plan Review Part A 1997) does give parking standards for new developments, but these are MAXIMUM provisions, not target or minimum. The only minimum standards relate to disabled parking spaces. Therefore far from insisting on doubling parking , the Council, in theory would not object if you offered no public spaces (apart from disabled) whatever! A more fundamental reappraisal of land use is needed, where the needs of the community are not subjugated to those of profit hungry developers and landowners. Before us is the challenge to prove that these elements are not mutually exclusive, I am hopeful of helping to achieve this, but all the time the Consortium is foisting its unwanted ideas, the process will be diverted away from deciding what is REALLY needed on this site. You talk of community groups being unable to consider compromise, but from what I see the only part of this project that URBED refuse to compromise on is the superstore and car park. I wouldn’t have thought that these elements of the project fit in with your core philosophy -but then again I thought that at our first meeting when you announced you were taking on the contract to work with the Consortium. I’ve read your book, and I’d like to think that Urbed has something to say to the community in Brighton, but for as long as you doggedly embrace the superstore/car park- driven concept your claims of being a sustainable urban designers for the future will have a hollow ring. Yours sincerely Keith Taylor (Green Party Councillor - St Peter’s Ward, and BUDD member) PS I have just read SunDial 10 - in which you (very selectively) quote me. You portray BUDD as simply being being oppositionist to a supermarket. As you well know this is not the case - you have our Concept Document, and you (hopefully) have read the ideas we have garnered from the community over the last three years. So it’s your house mag, and you are obviously going to paint Urbed in the best light possible! In the interests of transparency why not have a true debate of all the issues (giving BUDD editorial control of its own contribution)in your next issue?     From Joyce Edmond-Smith, Labour Party Councillor Dear David, I have been following the correspondence on the station site with interest. I am not a Budd member, but have been interested in the Station site over many years (I was involved in the very first development brief all those years ago) . I have therefore followed closely the development of views over a very long time. Whilst not necessarily agreeing with the entirety of Budd’s position (e.g. I consider the site could have lent itself to a possible Community Sports/Stadium), I am certainly in sympathy with their views and approach. I agree with them that this is an opportunity for a sustainable approach to town centre development. In that context I would make the following points on the correspondence I have read so far: I am puzzled to note the comment attributed to Nick by Sara about "Community Leaders" not agreeing with the findings of the CPE, and that it was not representative. I don’t know who might be considered to be "Community Leaders", but if by that you mean Councillors, and perhaps Council "leaders", then in the interest of the openness and accountability to which the Council is committed, it would be good to know which "Community Leaders". I attended several of the CPE meetings and I recall seeing very few other Councillors there. On the other hand I was impressed with the interest and commitment of the people who were there and now wonder why their views are not "representative", they certainly seemed so to me. I am not able to judge (like the rest of the public being excluded) whether in the discussions you are now having Budd members have become entrenched, I can only say that the message from those meetings was loud and clear - people did not want a supermarket. Perhaps that is what you mean when you say that you "were not able to develop a dialogue " at the CPE. When I was present I thought that there was indeed a lot of dialogue going on. Indeed, I initiated some of it by my views on a sports stadium - and was supported by a significant number of people, which incidentally did not get reflected as far as I can see in the report back. I am well aware that the arguments are complex and the ideal solution is rarely achievable, and I accept Urbed’s position that you want to change the way that towns and cities are built. In that sense I recognise how very far we have come from the original designs for the site. As a long-time local councillor I also accept that one has to influence the organisations that are doing the damage and that one has to decide when to compromise. However I am disappointed that all the thinking seems to be locked in to a present time frame, with little or no sense that the future is here and that this development will be with us for very many years to come. Perhaps that is why I find some ambiguities in your own arguments : You suggest that London Road is declining because of the lack of car-borne traffic - ergo we must bring car borne traffic back (exactly what the residents don’t want - neither as I understand it does the Councils’ Transport Strategy). You then make a somewhat questionable assumption that using supermarkets equals using cars and that stopping either is unlikely. I wonder if that means you assume that the Government’s Transport Strategy is doomed to failure . I agree that there may be a case for smaller supermarkets in town centre locations - we have one already in London Road and another in Lewes Road, and it seems to me to be little more than an act of faith to argue that the new store will attract people who go to out of town stores. You make the point in defence of the new supermarket that it will be in proximity to public transport, which entirely contradicts your point about car-borne traffic. The logic of that is that we should have a small superstore with no parking (again what we already have) , so why does the supermarket require 200 parking spaces ? In general the suggestions you make about dealing with traffic are very welcome, but will be negated if people are encouraged to come with their cars. In particular: A really sustainable housing scheme would have no parking spaces ,and indeed require residents not to have cars as they have done in Edinburgh - why can we not be as forward thinking ? Home Zones in North Laine - a great idea - but if we are attracting car-borne traffic where would displaced traffic go ? A massive yes to car-share share schemes , I am setting one up in my own ward . What plans to underwrite the cost ? Edinburgh’s cost £150.000. But the disappointment about the overall approach is that it is so timid. Why think of "home deliveries" as people "leaving their shopping to be delivered". Remember, thinking about the future, that e-commerce is bound to grow; will people really traipse around a food store, then leave it to be delivered, when they can do their shopping from home? We are in an era of rapid change, particularly with regard to transport and access, none of this seems to be taken into account. Even if a store is built, it is likely to be a white elephant in the not too distant future. Wouldn’t that be a wasted opportunity ? Carry on the dialogue. Yours sincerely, Joyce Edmond Smith (Councillor)     From Rob Stephenson Dear David, I attended your original presentation to BUDD some months ago and was generally impressed with the density of development you got onto the site, but disappointed that you put a supermarket on it. I have been following the discussions on new housing needs for the UK, and the hope that much will be on brownfield sites. I am also interested in the idea of a more liveable city - one in which I would be happier to move about and use. Such a city would push cars to the margins (not spacially, but in terms of priority). Any plans for such a large site really should look at the urban area as a whole - seeking to maximise the planning benefits to the town. Housing (and related workspace opportunities) has to be top of the list. Urban centre housing has the potential to revitalise the London Road and boost the North Laine - through the addition of several thousand new local residents only a few score metres away - living in a car free community, beside the hub of local rail transport. Another major issue in the town is the lack of a suitable football stadium. At the moment the Council is supporting a plan for a new stadium on the edge of the urban area. A much better site would be on part of the central Brighton Station site - where it would have the recreational resources of the town at hand (at the moment fans - both local and visiting - gather in the town before and after matches but traipse out to the suburban temporary stadium and back by bus or train). In addition it could be built without car parking because all fans could either walk or use existing public transport routes. That would be planning for a sustainable future. There is also a bottleneck in bus routes. All buses in Brighton and Hove pass through the Steine, North Street and Clock Tower, causing massive delays and long strings of buses. From the north and northeast of the town (areas such as Patcham, Coldean, Moulescoomb, Bevendean and the areas between these outlying areas and the centre) getting to the station is difficult by public transport. The station site redevelopment creates a once in a lifetime opportunity to open up a bus route from the Lewes and London Roads to the Station, Queens Road and Churchill Square that does not go to the seafront first. It would greatly improve the connectivity of the public transport networks, and further reduce the need for carparking - or a car-borne supermarket in the area. I know that your client is a supermarket, which rather limits your freedom to think broadly, but perhaps you can get some of these extra elements into the debate. Yours, Robert Stephenson     • TOP •