Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Happy Christmas from Santon

15
16
On 13 Dec 2014 at 4:34pm Henry wrote:
Santon has just served eviction notices to most of the businesses down on the Phoenix and they been told to get out by the end of December.
How nasty is that 2 weeks before Christmas?

Watch the video »
5
3
On 13 Dec 2014 at 5:00pm articulate wrote:
You're kidding??? Where's the 'dislike' button? I know that the development's happening, but not in two weeks' time
24
7
On 13 Dec 2014 at 5:16pm Legal Eagle wrote:
Isn't Dec 26th quarterly rent date ? Seems reasonable. They are allegably businesses after all, are they not ?
4
 
On 13 Dec 2014 at 11:06pm Bongo wrote:
When were the notices given? Which units were given them?
9
3
On 14 Dec 2014 at 3:30am Peasant wrote:
Seems a bit odd. They haven't even submitted the planning application yet. Why would you want rent-paying tenants evicted when re-development is still way in the future? Doesn't make sense.
7
4
On 14 Dec 2014 at 11:52am feline wrote:
I expect that they want to'punish' them for the Phoenix Rising opposition to their plan to get rid of the businesses and to try and diffuse the organisation of the alternative plans.
10
5
On 14 Dec 2014 at 1:35pm Legal Brief wrote:
Dec. 25th is one quarter day - the occupiers are allegedly and arguably businesses aren`t they ? Please feel free to give me 10 thumbs up .
3
12
On 14 Dec 2014 at 1:55pm bastian wrote:
if it is true that they have served notice then they are breaking the law by expecting tenants to be out by the end of the month-that's unreasonable, these are businesses-people with jobs will be affected at a crucial time of year.
What will the SDNP think about agreeing to Santon's plans after this kind of behaviour. It's bullying by any other name. If LDC back them up, well what will that look like? bullies with councils/council members in their pockets?
10
2
On 14 Dec 2014 at 4:21pm neighbour wrote:
As I understand it the occupiers are licensees. There is no illegality about it, they have no legal interest. It is certainly unpleasant and it would be nice to see the businesses remain in some way but calling it illegal is inaccurate. Santon will no doubt want to clear the site whilst the application goes through in the next few months. The SDNPA will not take this into account - it is irrelevant for the purposes of planning permission.
4
2
On 14 Dec 2014 at 4:47pm Bongo wrote:
I will find out Monday if we have jobs to go back to after the New Year. Very worrying.
4
3
On 14 Dec 2014 at 6:04pm bastian wrote:
Henry, where did you hear this piece of news?
and neighbour-you seem to know alot of fine detail-how can neighbours know more than the occupying businesses?
Phoenix film is very well made-definately not amatuers.
13
3
On 14 Dec 2014 at 8:44pm Local wrote:
Is the world meant to stop for a month in early December? If Santon want to clear the site that they paid the market rate for, why can't they?
For what it's worth, I imagine they want to quickly demolish the inconvenient buildings that LPR want to refurbish; I would if I were them.
4
1
On 14 Dec 2014 at 10:18pm lewes wrote:
Which businesses have been given eviction notices?
1
 
On 14 Dec 2014 at 10:23pm planner wrote:
They can't demolish anything without planning consent.
7
1
On 14 Dec 2014 at 11:27pm xplorer1 wrote:
If you own it and it isn't listed or in a conservation area, you can knock it down at your will.
1
1
On 14 Dec 2014 at 11:28pm xplorer1 wrote:
I should added "unfortunately"
6
1
On 15 Dec 2014 at 9:56am Actually.... wrote:
Until 31 March 2011 it was only necessary to seek prior approval for the demolition of a building that either comprised a dwelling, or was attached to a dwelling, to leave a cleared site. That approval was in addition to any other consent, eg conservation area consent or listed building consent.
Following a recent decision of the Court of Appeal paragraphs 2(1)(a) to (d) of the Town and Country Planning (Demolition Description of Buildings) Direction 1995, contained in DoE Circular 10/95 have been quashed. This has had effect that the demolition of any building prior to the grant of planning permission for redevelopment (and, if necessary, conservation area consent or listed building consent) must now be the subject of an application to the Planning Service in accordance with the provisions of Part 31 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 to check whether prior approval of the method of demolition would be required.
Demolition works also come within the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. Where demolition works are likely to have significant effects on the environment the Planning Service must issue a screening opinion on whether an environmental impact assessment is required.
3
1
On 15 Dec 2014 at 10:30am watcher wrote:
There are no plans to turn people out yet. Imagine the political mess if there were.
Happy Christmas Santon and all the businesses on your land.
7
1
On 15 Dec 2014 at 12:56pm lewes wrote:
Erm.... which businesses have been served eviction notices... I think this is a lie.
4
4
On 15 Dec 2014 at 2:06pm bastian wrote:
Perhaps someone is trying to discredit the phoenix rising project-pointless, theirs is the best option out there.
everyone back to work then, no wories.
 
2
On 15 Dec 2014 at 2:42pm trooper wrote:
SANTON where are you, have you or have you not served notice to quit ???
2
3
On 15 Dec 2014 at 6:59pm Horseman7 wrote:
When I visited the Phoenix Rising exhibition at Malling last week I was told by one of the architects that the tenants had just been served with eviction notices.
5
1
On 17 Dec 2014 at 6:23pm shopkeeper wrote:
Beautifully shot film , managed to avoid showing the actual state the people there leave it in . Also avoided showing all the broken bus and van dwellings , Lewes needs housing and obviously it'll be expensive but there are more affordable places nearby . It's not a given right to be able to own/rent property in a desirable location , some of us have had to work hard with that as a goal .
7
3
On 17 Dec 2014 at 6:24pm shopkeeper wrote:
Beautifully shot film , managed to avoid showing the actual state the people there leave it in . Also avoided showing all the broken bus and van dwellings , Lewes needs housing and obviously it'll be expensive but there are more affordable places nearby . It's not a given right to be able to own/rent property in a desirable location , some of us have had to work hard with that as a goal .
3
3
On 17 Dec 2014 at 8:20pm bastian wrote:
Ooh!, I've never heard that argument before-so running all the low life poor out of a suddenly up and coming area is ok is it? Sorry-there are family ties inLewes that you will never understand and may possibly have renading on in order to achieve your important goal.
3
 
On 17 Dec 2014 at 9:43pm renadingdeer rudolf wrote:
I`ve never heard of renading . Allegably it makes sense to Lewesians LOL
3
1
On 18 Dec 2014 at 1:05am Belladonna wrote:
He's right tho - no one has any right to live in any area, whether you were born there or not. Persinally Id like to live in my home town but it's unaffordable. (And it's not Lewes). It's not just a Lewes problem. It's all a consequence of thatcher selling off council homes and breaking up communities by decimating industry and manufacturing. Our society is now very fractured - many young people leave their home towns and have to make new lives elsewhere - but the resulting lack of local support (eg family child care, friendships) can make life far more difficult and lead to more social problems.
I do think that those offered the affordable homes under whichever scheme goes ahead should prove a local connection of at least three or five years, and not just a desire to live in a nice country town. There can be no favouritism or nepotism involved. The people who live/work on the estate now may not qualify, but it's the only fair way IMO
2
3
On 18 Dec 2014 at 3:45pm Local wrote:
May i ask how old you are, belladonna? Presumably too young to remember what a rotten state British (unionised) manufacturing was in by the 80's. The Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher put it out of its misery, rather than continuing to lavish ruinous personal taxation revenues on it as ultimately-doomed 'life support'. Of course, that's a tough reality for lefty-types to admit nowadays, who think that state support is the solution to all of life's problems.
5
3
On 18 Dec 2014 at 5:35pm YoureBothWrong wrote:
.... by inflating the economy on a tidal wave of consumer debt, which has been the model for growth ever since. It's not sustainable, given our trade deficit, and in the end will cause as much stagnation and strife as the rotten state of British manufacturing (which incidentally was just as much to do with the rotten old boys' club that formed the management). Of course, that's a tough reality for right-wingers to admit nowadays.
5
1
On 18 Dec 2014 at 9:07pm local wrote:
I'm not wrong chum. I didn't apportion blame to the appalling leadership of said industry and manufacturing, mainly because that is another thread in its own right. There was a scandalous disregard for decent design and innovation, partly caused by an almost total absence of effective tax breaks and allowances for R&D during the late 60s and 70s.
Consumer debt does need to be balanced and managed skilfully, something which New Labour were the last to fail miserably at. But what effective alternative is there; centralised control will never work in the long-term. We live in a world of individual choice and freedom. and i believe that we must accept that it's not utopia and never will be. But market forces are the only way to progress as a nation and as a world.
 
3
On 19 Dec 2014 at 3:58pm bastian wrote:
I love the total unexceptance by Local that he will never find himself in a situation where he cannot look after himself or pay for all his needs. In reallity, it only takes one accident to find yourself in a humble situation, just one slip and you can find that, even though you have tried to pay for everything yourself, because you have been left with an injury that means you cannot work, or cannot work full time, you will run out of funds- and that means you will have to use publicly funded amenities, maybe even housing, hospitals and care. So, in the intersts of EVERYONE, please can we stop being so negative about the fact that other people might need support and help, paid for by the rest of us who are working, because that someone might be us one day-getting old is not a life choice it will happen to all of us, I have seen no provision for the elderly in the Santon development.
3
2
On 19 Dec 2014 at 7:03pm Local wrote:
Please don't attribute your thoughts to me, bastian. I said nothing of the sort, so don't make it up for me. The State has a crucial role to play in regulating the private sector - but that is not the same as the State doing or trying to control far too much of the world that we live in.
So to turn to one of bastion's examples, Government should, if appropriate, specify development content such as for the elderly. Just out of interest, is there any elderly provision in LPR's scheme?
1
2
On 19 Dec 2014 at 7:44pm NoveauHommeJePense wrote:
The problem with that argument, local, is that most of the innovations that have driven the economy over the past few decades have come out of e state, albeit through long term investment in military research programmes, particularly in the us. The major innovations in apple products, for example, can be traced back to several us military r&d programme. Apple are brilliant, but brilliant at packaging ideas, designing a beautiful product and marketing it, it is the combination of the two sectors that drive progress.
You're also conflating the thirty plus years of housing and debt booms with a successful innovative economy. The failure has been on both sides of the political spectrum. Ever since the 80s we have bought more from the rest of the world than we sell,and the only way that has been possible is through accelerating public and private debt. That's not capitalism, its idiocy. And yet Osborne still seems to argue that we can reduce the deficit throu austerity, when basic economic tells you that unless we sell more to the world that means the consumer has to get even more in debt.
I Agree that the left was an utter failure in the post war period. Nationalisation was an utter disaster. But not for the reasons you'd claim. The failure was to leave the industrial structure intact, with the old division between inept upper class bosses and unskilled disenfranchised workers. There should have been more worker ownership, and the unions should have been brought onto corporate boards and given stakeholder rights in exchange on the condition that they agreed not to strike. The commonwealth was a problem too, giving it a cushy protected market, no surprise it all crumbled when exposed to proper competition.
Can I assume your belief in market forces extends to free movement of labour by the way?
 
 
On 20 Dec 2014 at 3:36pm bastian wrote:
and as we know, under competition, the weakest go to the wall-under this neo-con capitalism, the public have been encouraged to look at those under performing[?] people as scroungers, not the waste by product of this idiocy as the above poster rightly calls it.
2
 
On 20 Dec 2014 at 4:15pm Sussex Jim wrote:
What a good Labour Party broadcast from belladonna.
Someone else will pay, on the glorious day!
3
 
On 21 Dec 2014 at 2:00am Belladonna wrote:
I'm in my fifties. And I don't vote Labour. I'm in favour of no State support for capitalism. Unfortunately, despite a neo-con ideology, our government doesn't translate this into action and spends billions supporting banks, subsiding railways and incentivising corporations through tax breaks etc. Funny how all those people claiming to support business and complaining about the state sector don't acknowledge how the state keeps capitalism alive. Let's ask big business to make profits and pay their big bonuses without state subsidies (including those tax credits which enable them to pay low wages)
 
1
On 22 Dec 2014 at 7:48pm Vic wrote:
Whats Norman Baker doing about this industrial and cultural cleansing in Lewes? He's very quiet about it. He was happy to speak out about the flippin Premier Inn (especially given that his government shut it in the first place). He should be pro social housing for his local constituents, not some upper class enclave that prices the next generation of Lewes families out of the town!! The District Council should be ashamed of themselves. Build some bloody social housing for a change, there are thousands of people on the waiting list in this area.


This thread has reached its limit now
Why not start another one


 

Kingston Windmill 51:132
Kingston Windmill

I see you still pay no attention to the bits that might tax the old grey cells. more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.
Oscar Wilde