On 1 May 2009 at 2:46pm THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
I thought I post something positive about LDC planning. Lindsay Frost has promptly sorted out the Baxter's waste collection issue after criticism was voiced at the last 'Planning Matters' meeting. They could have thought of it during planning and taken care of it five months earlier but thank you. You are a star Lindsay.
Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT THE FRIDAY JOKE THREAD. I'm not employed by LDC or ESCC. I'm not paid by them nor have I accepted a free plot of land or any other gifts as an incentive to say something nice. The issue of oversubscribed resident parking for Zone D still applies. I'm sorry to say that one additional parking space for 35 dwellings is not enough. Also access for Fire & Rescue remains an issue.
Credits: Special Thanks go to the Lewes Coalition, Pru Rountree and John May who made it possible to voice our frustrations and invested a lot of time and hard work. The two lovely ladies who although asked Baxter's questions (You know who you are). Last but not least all the fine and welcoming residents of Lewes whom attended the meeting in large quantity. A BIG THANK YOU.
'I never had thought that one day I will get so euphoric about rubbish collections.'
On 1 May 2009 at 8:43pm Geoff wrote:
I am pleased to hear that despite being warned about all the current problems with Baxters, over 2 years ago, a public meeting has finally breather some life into the corpse of LDC's integrity. Perhaps Mr frost could now sort out the fire enging turning circle that has parking spaces in it, so cannot be relied upon.. After all, it is his fault that we have the problem. I am still amazed to find that despite being told, he still does not understand that fire access outwith a site is a planning issue. What is Councillor Gardiner doing about his head of planning's ignorance? He was at the meeting after all, and will have heard the mistake himself. We deserve better.
On 2 May 2009 at 7:55am Worker wrote:
I think you'll find Mr Frost won't be with LDC for much longer.
On 2 May 2009 at 9:19am sashimi wrote:
I hope you are wrong, Worker. Like planners everywhere, Lindsay gets a lot of stick, basically because the planning system he has to operate stinks and people the world over assume that money changes hands under the table on almost all planning decisions (clearly not true almost all the time and certainly not true in relation to LF)
On 2 May 2009 at 10:15pm Interested wrote:
Do tell Worker.
On 3 May 2009 at 11:11am Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
Mr Frost must have worked in local government for many years now - maybe he is going to take early retirement?
On 3 May 2009 at 12:12pm Worker wrote:
Spinster - my understanding is that it isn't far off.
On 3 May 2009 at 2:01pm Cliffebimbo wrote:
Do you work at LDC Worker? I do, and I haven't heard this news.
On 4 May 2009 at 8:22pm Fireman Sam wrote:
sashimi the fire engine turning circle is a bit irrelevant as you cannot get an appliance ino the Lane - well not one large enough to reach the top storey AND stand far enough away to be safe - the largest appliance that can use the lane will only serve two storeys - even then will be at the minimum safe distance to operate - ideally the lane should be a metre wider - more than that to serve a propoerty the height of the new development
On 4 May 2009 at 8:27pm Fireman Sam wrote:
Geoff the fire engine turning circle is a bit irrelevant as you cannot get an appliance ino the Lane - well not one large enough to reach the top storey AND stand far enough away to be safe - the largest appliance that can use the lane will only serve two storeys - even then will be at the minimum safe distance to operate - ideally the lane should be a metre wider - more than that to serve a property the height of the new development
AND where else can the existing residents park? the new development has removed all of their traditional parking spaces leaving them none - the new development itself does not have adequate for all of its units
On 5 May 2009 at 9:45am LTR wrote:
Sashimi, please don't use the difficult planning system as an excuse for Mr Frost's cock ups. It is what officers are trained for, and paid by us to understand and cope with. I am sure they are all grown up enough to cope. All authorities have the same crap sytem, and many of them cope with it. They also know their planning law, and don't stand up in public meetings, and give the wrong advice about planning law. I pressume you were at the Town hall. Did you believe Mr Frosts claim that fire access to St Nicholas Lane was not a planning issue for the Baxters Development? Just think of the implications if Mr Frost was wrong. Take a look at that massive block of flats, imagine them on fire, and imagine more than one fire engine trying to get in the lane, and finding that three cars are parked in the turning circle. Clumsy government policy isn't responsible for this mess, Mr Frost is.
The reason some residents think that people connected with LDC are taking cash is that they are looking for an explaination for the mistakes being made, and can't imagine it is simply utter incompetence. Like you, they want to believe that officers know what they are doing. Of course I do not know if LDC officers are taking money or not, I doubt it, but you don't have evidence either, so the confidence of your claim undermines your impartiality.
On 8 May 2009 at 8:13am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I seem to recall that concerns over fire service access were among the grounds for objection raised at the time the planning application for this eyesore were being considered, but reading it spelt out in the terms that Fireman Sam puts it makes me wonder if I dreamed that.
It sounds very much as though there is no real way of fighting a fire on the upper floors of that building, which is alarming. Aren't the fire sevice consultees on applications like this? If not, they should be.
The more I hear about it, the more I am amazed that the Pantworks was ever allowed.
On 8 May 2009 at 4:17pm No Pot Pourri wrote:
Speaking of the Pantworks, have you noticed the render falling off the Walwers Lane side, while the slates are falling off the roof on the side facing St Nicholas Lane. Sadly the planners have little say in the quality of construction, which is a shame because Lewes has been left with a pretty shoddy development.
P.S. I noticed someone else posting under my name and I feel violated!
On 9 May 2009 at 11:12am Geoff wrote:
Fire Access was raised, but Mr Frost, and his staff incorrectly told our Councillors that it was not a planning issue. This is an incorrect understanding of the law, so a material consideration was omitted from the decision. This in itself is a breach of the law. We are now left with a barely occupied crap building with lots of problems, mainly that if a fire breaks out, the proper equipment cant get in, and if anyone happens to be parked (this is Lewes, so i think we can pressume they will be) the legally required turning provision is unusable. The worst thing about this, is that residents spotted the mistake, and found the correct legal process to protect them, but officers ignored them, over-ruled them, and are still telling officers, and the public that fire access to lanes such as St Nicholas lane is not for our Planning committe to consider. How long before Peter Gardiner will check what his officers tell him witha source outside the Council. After all they spent four years incorrectly advising Councillors they could not meet with the publice (can we all spot the trend?) in order to have control over planning information.