Portslade councillors have welcomed the decision to pull the plug on plans to house 60 people with complex mental health needs in the Old Brewery.
They spoke out after the building’s owner, Peker Holding London Limited, said: “What we were told and what we believe now is going to happen does not match.”
The councillors said that they welcomed the decision by Peker that “they no longer want to be involved with SJOG” and their plans.
SJOG (St John of God), a charity based in Darlington, Co Durham, planned to turn most of the building into supported housing for people with complex mental health needs and substance misuse issues.
After a meeting with Councillor Alan Robins and Councillor Peter Atkinson yesterday (Monday 17 October), Peker told them that the company would no longer proceed with the plans.
SJOG had won the contract to re-provide almost 60 beds of supported housing for people with various mental health needs.
Controversially, they identified the Old Brewery building, also known as Le Carbone, in High Street, in Portslade Old Village, as being the preferred choice for the facility.
This was confirmed at a meeting in early August between a joint commissioning group made up of representatives of Brighton and Hove City Council and NHS Sussex, the new integrated care board.
They had put the contract out to tender in January and planned to move people into the Old Brewery in Portslade at the start of this month.
But Portslade councillors were not notified until the end of last month – a week before the first residents were due to move on to the site.
The Portslade councillors all called for the plans to be paused because of the short notice and complete lack of consultation with local residents.
And Councillor Les Hamilton said that the plans might require a new planning application to be submitted.
The planning issue was then subject to discussion between lawyers representing the various groups involved.
There were also two public meetings last week which saw a huge turnout of local residents.
At the first meeting, representatives from the council, SJOG and the NHS were grilled by angry local people. They then declined to attend the second meeting, adding to criticism from the community.
All this is now academic with Peker themselves calling a halt to the proposals for the building that the company owns.
Councillor Hamilton said: “I think it is very unlikely that it will now go ahead. The complete lack of prior warning or local consultation was a massive mistake which has rebounded badly on the commissioners and SJOG.”
Councillor Robins said: “We tried to be as fair as possible to those involved in this but it was clear that no real thought had been given to how it would work or how local people could be brought onside with the proposals”
Councillor Atkinson said: “This is a victory for common sense and local people. They made their views clear at the two public meetings.
“It was not bigotry or prejudice against people with mental health problems. But it was more about the manner in which they felt that they were being taken for granted.”
Read the background to the story here.
“What we were told and what we believe now is going to happen does not match.” No surprises there then. Welcome to the world of the residents of this city. BHCC refuses to put residents first, to put residents’ needs, wishes, concerns at the front and centre of all they do. BHCC commitment to residents: ….. “We will understand and get things done. We will be clear and treat you with respect” … Again sorely lacking. Lesson #1 (again): TALK TO RESIDENTS FIRST!!!!!
Well done to a lovey bunch of bigots – I am amazed you didn’t have burning torches.
Are there any vacant large buildings in your neighbourhood? Asking for a friend…at BHCC
Did you actually read the article or are you blinded by your virtue signaling? The area already has a facility at Emmaus which was successfully set up because of a really good consultation with the local community. This current bunch of Jokers (SJOG/NHS/ Council Officers – take your pick), just decided to set this up with NO consultation, NO planning permission and NO consent from the landlord. Basically this has little do do with the residents, (although obviously they had some concerns), and everything to do with gross incompetence of those setting it up. No bigotry required.
👍
Perhaps residents could table a few questions, about the way BHCC has conducted itself, at the next Full Council meeting? Oh no – you can’t do that – the Mayor will step in and stop you.
That’s democracy – BHCC style
👏
The tender process, the whole outlook needs looking at, personally there is no issue with the building, its actually great, but the procurement process and and wrap around support needs to be looked at. Bringing in so many out of area tenders is not good for the city, even if they recruit locally. We need local services for local people and much more holistic / pathways out of homelessness that will take those with lived experience in prominent roles and at the table along with everyone else with a vested interest.
A summit!
Are there any vacant large buildings in your neighbourhood? Asking for a friend…at BHCC
The article mentions 4 councilors but it widely known that only Alan, Les and Peter actually opposed the process. Cllr Anne P, (and her supporters), where all for SJOG setting up and not telling the residents – that is why she has said noting in the press or social media. I hope her electorate remember this next year.
Is that right? Evidence please, and, if it’s true about Anne P & Co, then shame on her and she should get kicked out next year, for this and other things. I think we all know by now, even if we’re on the other side of the city, and even if we’re not of their political persuasion, that Alan, Les and Peter would do something about this total fiasco – and it was/is a fiasco/fit-up by the serially incompetent BHCC officers in cahoots with the NHS and the SJOG outfit and not even realising about planning permission, whether or not the property owner was aware of it all and had signed the lease, and so on.
As I have said a few times before on this forum, buty everyone ignores it, council officers are just running wild and unchecked, which is down to the council Executive rather than councillors, but it would be good if the current leader of the council and his cohorts actually got a grip on what executives and officers are doing (incompetently, it appears) in their name). Where is the control and scrutiny of these seemingly renegade officers???