Hove residents kept squatters in school secret
2:30pm Tuesday 25th January 2011
- Share
- Comments(10)
Residents kept quiet about squatters taking over a former school because they preferred them to the idea of developers moving in.
A group of about a dozen people are believed to have moved into a section of the vacant Park House in Old Shoreham Road, Hove, in November.
But neighbours have remained tight lipped, saying they preferred the building to be used for shelter than left derelict.
Others said the first they heard of the squatters was when more than 100 people attended an all-night “leaving” party on Friday.
It comes as landowners Hyde, who were knocked back in plans to build flats on the site in April, revealed they would shortly be submitting a third application to develop the plot.
The former Bellerbys College site has been vacant since 2007.
During this time Hyde has been twice unsuccessful with plans to build dozens of flats on the land, which is opposite Hove Park.
- Share
- Comments(10)
Your Say YourArgus
<!–dhamallamafarmer, says… //–>
dhamallamafarmer, says…
3:18pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Work shy soap dodgers keeping corporate conglomerates from developing modern flats where they’re not wanted, stopping the destruction of loved buildings, aught to be chased off and put into municipal housing at public expense or better yet prison!
That’ll teach them not to go onto council housing lists and benefits!
<!–saveHOVE, Hove says… //–>
saveHOVE, Hove says…
4:09pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Hyde foolishly bought the site from Bellerby’s in 2007 at the height of the property boom for top dollar have since sought to jam 72 flats onto the site to get their money back.
The impressive Park House integral skylit studio annex , built in 1904/5 with 3 smaller houses directly behind it (as 1, 2, 3, 4 Hove Park Gardens) was something Hyde crudely failed to appreciate.
They could have restored Park House – a grand residence with a huge garden before the War and a Hove Council operated “residential home for the elderly mentally frail” by 1949 – and provided housing almost immediately to homeless people. But no.
Just demolish useful housing in the modern extensions and Park House itself. Cheaper to newbuild a massive block of rabbit hutches.
72 units in a block (with parking) were planned, including market housing overlooking Hove Park and social housing facing the walls of Gannet house to the north or facing the roar of Old Shoreham Road from behind permanently closed triple glazed windows, to the south. And all-night security lights blazing between the parks and onto the Hove Park Manor and Gannet House flats.
Their plans even included children’s play space combined with car parking in the same space – I kid you not.
They don’t care what is on a site, what matters culturally or aesthetically to an area. They are outsiders just gobbling land to build on. End of.
Park House was the first to be built north of Old Shoreham Road in that area and it was refused electricity by Hove Borough Council in 1916 because it was in Steyning’s jurisdiction and not Hove’s. It has historical significance and should be kept and converted.
Many are shocked to learn it is not a listed building, that it has no protection from vandals like Hyde Housing.
Converting Park House to flats and replacing the modern extensions with a couple of family homes on the Goldstone Crescent into Old Shoreham Road area would not have been about overdevelopment profiteering at the expense of environmental values. And residents would have welcomed such an outcome.
Hove Park and the Hove Recreation Ground are an important green lung area, mopping up city air pollution; and, by flanking it on either side, they guard, protect and enable a really exceptional wildlife haven within the Hove Park Gardens enclave between them to survive and flourish.
A vast, lit-up, city-centre type, 24/7, block of urban slapped onto the Park House site would compromise the area’s parkland sanctuary which is used by people from all over the city for their children, dogs, sport and peaceful sitting and walking.
Parks are chillout spaces and we deeply deeply need to protect them from encroachment by rapacious, stupid and greedy developers.
Hyde foolishly bought the site from Bellerby’s in 2007 at the height of the property boom for top dollar have since sought to jam 72 flats onto the site to get their money back.
The impressive Park House integral skylit studio annex , built in 1904/5 with 3 smaller houses directly behind it (as 1, 2, 3, 4 Hove Park Gardens) was something Hyde crudely failed to appreciate.
They could have restored Park House – a grand residence with a huge garden before the War and a Hove Council operated “residential home for the elderly mentally frail” by 1949 – and provided housing almost immediately to homeless people. But no.
Just demolish useful housing in the modern extensions and Park House itself. Cheaper to newbuild a massive block of rabbit hutches.
72 units in a block (with parking) were planned, including market housing overlooking Hove Park and social housing facing the walls of Gannet house to the north or facing the roar of Old Shoreham Road from behind permanently closed triple glazed windows, to the south. And all-night security lights blazing between the parks and onto the Hove Park Manor and Gannet House flats.
Their plans even included children’s play space combined with car parking in the same space – I kid you not.
They don’t care what is on a site, what matters culturally or aesthetically to an area. They are outsiders just gobbling land to build on. End of.
Park House was the first to be built north of Old Shoreham Road in that area and it was refused electricity by Hove Borough Council in 1916 because it was in Steyning’s jurisdiction and not Hove’s. It has historical significance and should be kept and converted.
Many are shocked to learn it is not a listed building, that it has no protection from vandals like Hyde Housing.
Converting Park House to flats and replacing the modern extensions with a couple of family homes on the Goldstone Crescent into Old Shoreham Road area would not have been about overdevelopment profiteering at the expense of environmental values. And residents would have welcomed such an outcome.
Hove Park and the Hove Recreation Ground are an important green lung area, mopping up city air pollution; and, by flanking it on either side, they guard, protect and enable a really exceptional wildlife haven within the Hove Park Gardens enclave between them to survive and flourish.
A vast, lit-up, city-centre type, 24/7, block of urban slapped onto the Park House site would compromise the area’s parkland sanctuary which is used by people from all over the city for their children, dogs, sport and peaceful sitting and walking.
Parks are chillout spaces and we deeply deeply need to protect them from encroachment by rapacious, stupid and greedy developers.
<!–NickBrt, Brighton says… //–>
NickBrt, Brighton says…
4:09pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Where’s Caroline Lucas for a pro-squatting comment? Or has she gone into hibernation?
<!–yaddab, says… //–>
yaddab, says…
6:34pm Tue 25 Jan 11
saveHOVE – what can I say.
A well written, response.
I learned from more from what you had to say, than anything the Argos ever seems to report.
Qudos
saveHOVE – what can I say.
A well written, response.
I learned from more from what you had to say, than anything the Argos ever seems to report.
Qudos
<!–jrowen, Hove says… //–>
jrowen, Hove says…
6:57pm Tue 25 Jan 11
I have a young family and currently rent a home for an extortionate rate not far from Hove Park; personally I would like to see the site brought back into use – preferably for low cost sale or partshare ownership. We work hard and have some savings, but are still far off being able to afford a deposit to buy our own home and put down roots. The current buildings look pretty run down (in my opinion) and OK the old house looks quite nice but the rest of the buildings wouldn’t be missed. As for play areas, the land is between two of Hove’s biggest parks – that’s where I’d take my children to play. SaveHove obviously has some strong views on this but personally I’d like to see a new development here – I can’t see that flats are incompatible with the park…
<!–Pebbles, Brighton says… //–>
Pebbles, Brighton says…
7:04pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Well done “SaveHove” and excellent piece of writing and a history lesson as well!
<!–Hove person, Hove says… //–>
Hove person, Hove says…
7:31pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Spot on Save Hove! When this building was vacated over three years ago it was a thriving English Language school and the accommodation next to Hove Park was occupied by students. jrowen, Hove the only reason the buildings are looking run down is because the developers have done nothing to care for the buildings or the gardens. Save Park House and develop the accomodation. We definitely need more homes in Brighton and Hove and more social housing but Hyde Martlett were proposing lovely big roomy flats overlooking the park or on the upper floors of their five storey development looking south towards the sea and the social housing was virtually all north facing, or on the lower floors looking out onto the Old Shoreham Road with triple glazing and windows that surely would never have been opened! Security word park-hall (could be the new name for the development?)
<!–Hove person, Hove says… //–>
Hove person, Hove says…
7:35pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Sorry just realised I missed out FOR THE MARKET SALES
but Hyde Martlett were proposing lovely big roomy flats overlooking the park or on the upper floors of their five storey development looking south towards the sea FOR THE MARKET SALES
I must read through before I click submit so tickled by my last security words!
Sorry just realised I missed out FOR THE MARKET SALES
but Hyde Martlett were proposing lovely big roomy flats overlooking the park or on the upper floors of their five storey development looking south towards the sea FOR THE MARKET SALES
I must read through before I click submit so tickled by my last security words!
<!–saveHOVE, Hove says… //–>
saveHOVE, Hove says…
9:13pm Tue 25 Jan 11
For the benefit of jrowen an explanation. Within the working case files for the 2 previous Hyde applications there was an internal consultee response from Children and etc. officers.
The playand sports facilities and park condition are as they are because of due care and consideration of numbers using them.
The consultee response commented that use of the children’s play area is at capacity and people do drive to the parks to use them. Parkiing is always an issue for surrounding streets as a consequence.
Too high density use of the parks would soon see them turn into scruffy dirt yards in parts with lots of broken equipment, lights, whatever. Too many children all trying to use this one play area would see wan little faces just looking uneasily at the unobtainable if all the bits were in use.
The parks have to be maintained and that costs a mountain of money too.
It is the high level of activity 72 flats would generate in that area that is perhaps hard to grasp if unfamiliar with planning issues and development control.
Think of the purple haze and pollution of North Street on a hot summer day. Want that round the parks? Nah.
For the benefit of jrowen an explanation. Within the working case files for the 2 previous Hyde applications there was an internal consultee response from Children and etc. officers.
The playand sports facilities and park condition are as they are because of due care and consideration of numbers using them.
The consultee response commented that use of the children’s play area is at capacity and people do drive to the parks to use them. Parkiing is always an issue for surrounding streets as a consequence.
Too high density use of the parks would soon see them turn into scruffy dirt yards in parts with lots of broken equipment, lights, whatever. Too many children all trying to use this one play area would see wan little faces just looking uneasily at the unobtainable if all the bits were in use.
The parks have to be maintained and that costs a mountain of money too.
It is the high level of activity 72 flats would generate in that area that is perhaps hard to grasp if unfamiliar with planning issues and development control.
Think of the purple haze and pollution of North Street on a hot summer day. Want that round the parks? Nah.
<!–saveHOVE, Hove says… //–>
saveHOVE, Hove says…
9:27pm Tue 25 Jan 11
Something else: part-share ownership is a con. There is a lot of evidence that these are more expensive in practice and when you want to sell your part share ownership, the flats are harder to shift.
What has happened in a some places (over Preston Park way is an example) is that these part ownership flats end up being used for rental, to take allocations from council lists (no bad thing), etc.
Tonight I heard on radio of a junior doctor with £25,000 deposit saved who cannot get a mortgage; and if she could, the mortgage repayments would be a huge chunk more than her rent is.
Hopes dashed for a high flyer. Could you do better than her in a shared ownership deal, jrowan?
The bottom line was this: the banks are using people with mortgages to refill their empty coffers, to rebuild their positions in the wake of the biggest financial crash/crisis in generations by charging difficult rates of interest.
What looks viable, is tempting, always needs a good old bit of research to test if it is true or just a bubblegum balloon full of wishful thinking.
Something else: part-share ownership is a con. There is a lot of evidence that these are more expensive in practice and when you want to sell your part share ownership, the flats are harder to shift.
What has happened in a some places (over Preston Park way is an example) is that these part ownership flats end up being used for rental, to take allocations from council lists (no bad thing), etc.
Tonight I heard on radio of a junior doctor with £25,000 deposit saved who cannot get a mortgage; and if she could, the mortgage repayments would be a huge chunk more than her rent is.
Hopes dashed for a high flyer. Could you do better than her in a shared ownership deal, jrowan?
The bottom line was this: the banks are using people with mortgages to refill their empty coffers, to rebuild their positions in the wake of the biggest financial crash/crisis in generations by charging difficult rates of interest.
What looks viable, is tempting, always needs a good old bit of research to test if it is true or just a bubblegum balloon full of wishful thinking.
Your sayYour Argus
Add your comment
Register for a FREE The Argus account and you can have your say on today’s news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.
Please register now or sign in below to continue.