Dudeney Lodge and Nettleton Court
In the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017, there has been extra focus on the safety of high-rise buildings.
Independent surveys of Dudeney Lodge and Nettleton Court in Upper Hollingdean Road, which included both observational and intrusive surveying, show that these high rise residential tower blocks do not meet the current safety standards in relation to their ability to resist a disproportionate collapse in the case of an explosion or large fire.
The 16-storey blocks, each with 87 dwellings, were built in 1966 on land previously used for allotments. There are six other tower blocks in Brighton with the same problem i.e. also built using “large panel system” (LPS) construction. They are Falcon Court, Heron Court, Kestrel Court, Kingfisher Court and Swallow Court in north Whitehawk and St James's House in Kemptown. 559 flats in all are affected.
One option now is refurbishment and the other is demolition and redevelopment of the sites.
See:
Brighton Council sets aside £20m to buy blighted flats [The Argus 14th March 2025]
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/24462306.brighton-high-rise-residents-warned-block-not-meet-safety/ [19th July 2024]
and
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c03l205d93do [25th July 2024]
Residents given building safety update [18th July 2024]
In collaboration with East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, the Building Regulator and the Social Housing Regulator, Brighton and Hove City Council has introduced the following measures:
- A temporary ban on e-bikes and e-scooter in all areas of the buildings, with the council providing alternative storage for these away from the blocks
- A temporary ban on vehicles parking underneath the blocks, which includes a temporary suspension of the use of the garages behind Nettleton Court and Dudeney Lodge
- A 24 hour security service will be put in place for the buildings to help manage what’s taken into the building and to support with floor walks and maintaining clear entrance and exit ways
Residents' concerns about fire risk have been heightened because of fires in recent years at The Waste Transfer Station in Hollingdean Depot.
One of the questions in a recent freedom of information request to Brighton and Hove City Council was whether they have undertaken any risk assessment about the proximity of Dudeney Lodge and Nettleton Court to the Hollingdean Waste Transfer Station, which has seen multiple fires in recent years, and whether this creates additional risks for these blocks.
The Council's response was: "Yes, Fire Risk Assessments (FRAs) are completed on an annual cycle for all High rise blocks, with ongoing reviews and site visits to assure ongoing risk management and prompt remediation and improvement work to help continue to ensure the buildings are safe. This work incorporates an external assessment, both of building materials and neighbouring risk, which we recognise could be from a nearby site. No serious risk was recognised to resident safety due to the proximity of the waste transfer station, However, if there was a major incident at this site any impact would be a serious consideration, e.g. keep all doors and windows closed, stay indoors to reduce potential from smoke inhalation."
HOLLINGDEAN DEPOT INDEX - RECENT HISTORY
Access to all the articles about Hollingdean Depot on this website plus a chronology of events from 2003 to 2025
Read specifically why failure to install an airlock entry system on Hollingdean's Waste Transfer Station results in regular escapes of odour and airborne biological particles.
Why have there been so many fires at Hollingdean's Waste Transfer Station?
Separate food waste collections - an opportunity missed to take odorous waste elsewhere for tipping where it is not so near homes in Hollingdean, Round Hill and St Peter's.
Proposed green roof and green walls never included in the MRF
The green roof and green walls proposed for the Hollingdean Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) were part of the original design intentions but were not formalized as enforceable planning conditions in the approved application BH2006/00900 in June 2006. These features were ultimately not implemented.
While the initial planning documents and architectural plans included these green infrastructure elements to enhance sustainability and visual integration with the surrounding environment, the absence of specific conditions mandating their implementation meant that their inclusion was not legally required.
The lack of enforceable conditions regarding the green roof and walls has been a point of contention among local residents and environmental groups, who have expressed concerns about the facility's environmental impact and the perceived deviation from the original sustainable design commitments.
This page was last updated by Ted on 27-May-2025