Reply to Chris Gilbert article in Evening Argus - Published 22nd February 2002
 
 

 

Chris Gilbert of QED seems to think that critics of the station site development are simply indulging in the luxury of objection for its own sake (Argus Saturday 16 Feb). Believe me it is not a luxury, it's a necessity, it's bloody hard work and unlike his job, it's unpaid. He says this development has been widely discussed. I can tell him that the only reason for those discussions is that objectors have arranged the public meetings which should have been organised by the developers and the council. The same objectors pressured the council into displaying the model for more than two days in Brighton so people can see what a truly mediocre proposal is being trumpeted as an "Exemplar of 21st century urban development". Finally, and most importantly, great numbers of the public have written to the Argus and Leader, and I don't remember seeing any letters in support.

Brighton Urban Design and Development (BUDD) has gone through the developer's plans very carefully and compared them with the council's plan for the station site which is more than the developers appear to have done. This process has highlighted serious discrepancies. For example, one would think that the developers would at least be able to come up with a supermarket that was the right size, but no, their's is bigger than allowed for in the council's plan. They have also understated the number of additional car parking places by 200. The scheme does not fulfil the requirement to move away from the dominance of the car and will create traffic chaos. The council has claimed that the retail element (Sainsbury's) is essential to make the scheme financially viable. This is not only contrary to government planning guidance, it is untrue. The council's own consultants concluded that there were alternative ways of funding development of the site.

But perhaps the most damning aspect is the effect that this traffic and retail led development will have on the local community and environment. Government figures show that when a supermarket opens, it has an adverse affect on local business, with job losses and small traders closing down. You only have to look at the disastrous effect the new Sainsbury's has had on the Lewes Road and the effect of the new Churchill Square has had on the Western Road to see what will happen to the London Road if a massive new supermarket with a car park opens up the hill.

BUDD has sent a letter detailing all these points and more to the council. The full text is available on the website (www.BUDDbrighton.org <http://www.buddbrighton.org/> ). What is being proposed is not the "exemplar of 21st century urban development" claimed by the developers, it is an object lesson in what to avoid, and Brighton and Hove council should listen to the people who would have to live with it and refuse the application.

Richard Paul-Jones

 

To: The Guardian - 22nd June 2000
 
 


Subject: Participation - rhetoric or reality? Observations from the south.

Dear sir/madam

Your article on community participation in local government in Brazil ('Calling the Shots': Society 21.6.00) makes heartening reading. However, we have a cautionary tale where consultation has been used as a rhetorical cloak to disguise old fashioned 'council knows best' attitudes.

There has been concerted public opposition to the siting of a Sainsbury's superstore on a massive regeneration site in Brighton. Two previous superstore applications had been rejected before a public inquiry also found against the proposal. Since then packed public meetings and local petitions have continued to oppose the development. The council then embarked on 'consultation' by funding a three day planning event attended by 500 people. Yet again, there was near unanimity against a superstore. Councillors then decided to develop a planning brief by setting up a "consultative" working group in which they decided who should participate, the terms of reference, the final report, and even whether dissent could be recorded. A council brief in support of the controversial store has duely emerged.

The council has used the facade of consultation to ignore the consistent demand of the public opinion it expressly sought. Perverse outcomes like these undermine public faith in 'consultations' and expose community participation in local democracy as a hollow sham. Unlike Brazil it is the council who calls the shots here.

Yours sincerely
Mike Aiken, BUDD

 

 

To: Evening Argus - 27th April 2000 - "Points from the Post"
 
 

 

Who is the new Sainsburys development (Brighton station site) aimed at?
Not me - a London Road shopper with a pushchair and no car.

Annebella Pullen

 

To: Evening Argus - 17th October 1999 (not published)
 
 

 

Subject: Superstore City

Regarding Simon Fanshawe's campaign to help Brighton and Hove achieve city status and his support for Sainsburys' bid to develop the station site, I wonder whether HRH The Queen will consider yet another superstore, with associated traffic congestion and pollution, a worthy substitute for a cathedral?

Changing the town's name to Anytown might be more appropriate if Sainsbury's get their way.

One also has to wonder why the council is so determined to waste this unique opportunity to ensure a development in the heart of Brighton of which we can be proud.

Bernard Claydon

 

 

• TOP •