On 28 May 2008 at 10:33am Enoch wrote:
I have posted this previously but it is so far down now nobody will notice it.
There is a public consultation on Thursday 29th May and Tuesday 3rd June at the Harveys Site from 6 till 8pm if anyone is interested in seeing the plans and model of the site and to meet Mr Elliot and his Architect please come along.
On 29 May 2008 at 11:11am the boss wrote:
like others, I'm not interested, you need to get out more
On 29 May 2008 at 2:32pm Local wrote:
Sorry Boss, a lot of us ARE interested and will be going to see the show.
On 29 May 2008 at 2:47pm Janet Street Preacher wrote:
the boss - Some people are interested some aren't. Don't be threatened by the ones that are though, I'm sure they mean you no harm.
You'll probably be doing something so much more interesting to you on those dates and I hope you enjoy it.
Don't forget to vote though.
On 29 May 2008 at 3:12pm Frak wrote:
Vote on what?
On 29 May 2008 at 5:43pm Janet Street Preacher wrote:
Whatever you feel strongly about
On 29 May 2008 at 9:11pm MC wrote:
The Boss.... he is getting out more.
And he's obviously intent on not being walked all over. Your attitude stinks of lazy and simple minded submission.
On 29 May 2008 at 9:38pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
I went to this evenings public consultation and it was an absolute farce!
Three employees from the firm of architects were on hand to sell the scheme by talking absolute nonsense to those that attended.
The artists impressions consisted of the usual misleading tosh, including trees on Mountfield Road that must be in excess of 500ft tall (I hope that tree preservation orders are imposed).
The five story office block is to be built on the site of the public toilets, even though the toilets have not been sold - in fact they are not even up for sale yet!
The designers have jumped well and truly onto the eco-bandwagon and have smothered solar panels all over the development and placed a turf roof on the five story building (north facing of course). And the token "green wall" makes an appearance too.
At the end people are encouraged to complete a truly loaded questionnaire which is full of incorrect statements (no doubt with the intent of misleading people into agreeing with the scheme).
Martin Elliott was not on hand - either he could not afford to attend, or possibly was overcome with guilt for proposing such a shameful development.
On 29 May 2008 at 10:26pm sashka wrote:
a disaster so dreadful....that even Norman Baker is finally climbing off the fence to join the rest of the town in a fight for the survival of the historic environment before it disappears behind excessive new builds.
On 30 May 2008 at 8:13am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Well, if they do get planning permission for this monstrosity, I hope it requires them to replace the existing public lavatory with one in the foyer of their building that we can all use when caught short. Lewes is deplorably short of public bogs, especially after 7pm.
I hope to god they don't succeed with this. Imo, Elliott won't be happy until every street in Lewes is overlooked by one of his 5 storey monoliths.
On 30 May 2008 at 11:45am Local wrote:
I saw the display too. First off, it's a bit worrying that the developers seem to think that East Sussex is the local planning authority (this is what they say on their questionnaire). I agree the questions on it are pitifully loaded. As for the proposed development itself - ten or so studio flats and two one-bedroomed flats are hardly likely to help local people with their housing problems. They're for commuters. Also, the usual eco-guff that all developers have to sign up to these days. Lewes DC would have to allow change of use from industrial to residential for the development to go ahead. Unfortunately, given past form the people of Friars Walk will soon be living next to a building site.
On 30 May 2008 at 1:57pm sashka wrote:
The most shameful thing i ahve read is that the 'friends' of Lewes chair Robert Cheeseman' (an ex civil servant) has said 'in my view it is a sensible use of the land.
Well I hope some of his members cancel their subscriptions. I wonder what his view would have been if it had been in Southover,
With friends like this, who needs enemies.
A complete disgrace.
On 30 May 2008 at 2:15pm Local wrote:
I wonder if Friends of Lewes might be operating under false pretences. They say on their website, 'Our aims are to stimulate public interest in the beauty, history and character of the town of Lewes and its surrounding area; and to organise concerted action for protecting and enhancing the townscape and for preserving free access to the surrounding area.'
Enhancing the townscape? Organise concerted action? Was it FoL who organised the recent demonstration against overdevelopment? I don't think so.
On 30 May 2008 at 2:22pm me wrote:
i also read that. I have often wondered who the friends of lewes are for. (certainly not for me - an average working man) Now it seems they have finally shown their true colours. I think you will find a certain chairman of a certain organisation lives very near to a certain developer who will ceratinly destroy lewes for profit. hhhhhmmmmmmmm.........
On 30 May 2008 at 2:45pm print wrote:
Thankyou for your clarity spinster. I was wondering about the toilets. Are we to relinquish all public spaces? I also have a soft spot for those trees on the little patch of green. With luck the truly outrageous nature of this proposal will unite everyone in the town to counter other lidicrous greedy planning proposals like the proposed demolition of the Canon ODonnell Community Centre; - no change of use or loss of community space here say the planners; we can use instead the new parochial rooms of St Pancreas Church instead!
On 30 May 2008 at 2:48pm heffer wrote:
Funny that! Also interesting that the wife of a certain head of planning at a certain local authority happens to go walking with the wife of a certain local property developer. hmmmmmmm.....
p.s. if you need an alternative to the Friends of Lewes - become a friend of Glenda: friendsofglenda.co.uk
On 30 May 2008 at 2:50pm print wrote:
I saw the Friends of Lewes remarks in the Sussex Express and couldn't believe what I was reading; now I can.
On 30 May 2008 at 3:00pm s.oliver wrote:
I wonder why Friends of lewes are so ignorant of our towns history. the reason why there is a patch of green and some toilets on that terrible piece of Hoghway that accesses this site, is because the building that had stood there was knocked down to improve visibilty and traffic flow.
That was at the beginning of the last century. Are we supposed to believe that visibility and traffic flow have since improved?
Maybe Mrs Elliot and Frost could discuss the matter on one of their walks.
On 30 May 2008 at 3:17pm I love development wrote:
Ok guys, what exactly would you like to see at Pinwell road ?....don't you think this town needs to be brought into the 21st century a bit....if the town continues to paint pictures of twee antique shops etc etc, the town will die a death with more and more people spending their cash in other, more up and coming towns.
I'm not talking about turning it into a "new Crawley"....there are ways and means to develop the town, keep it's character yet bring it into the 21st century and i believe the Pinwell road site will do just that.
Virtually everyone i've spoken to is fed up with the stuffiness of people in this town (a minority but with a big voice).
On 30 May 2008 at 3:38pm s.oliver wrote:
Your view is valid, but you do not understand you fellow townsfolk. What we all think about the design is opinion, but scale, materials, traffic management, and loss of amenity is not.
Residents are not against development. They are against bad development that breaches our policies. If you read the Lewes District Plan, and ESCC Plan and compare them with what is regularly being presented and approved you will understand what we are all complaining about.
In this case there is no reason to redevelop at all. The site is a much needed commercial space next to the station. The proposal disregards Conservation Area policy regarding height, and materials. What the Highway Authority will make of the apalling access provision for the different types of traffic this would generate, goodness only knows.
It does not matter how many people are against this development,, the point is that there views are valid, but are being consistantly ignored by the Council, and Councillors. That is costing us money, because this failure to listen is breaching consultation, and planning requirements, causing expensive corrections to need to be made afterwards. Albion St is a case in point. We are yet to see how the Council will remedy the mistakes they have made at the Lewes House site, that could be very costly indeed.
I am sure you would not expect your views to take precedence over anyone elses. At least 500 people voted with their feet on a march, and they do not represent a minority . Some marchers represented large local groups, and I find it hard to believe that your social circle would represent an unbiased cross section of lewes opinion. Everyone I know agrees with me, but they would, wouldn't they?! However as i say, your view, and that of those who share it, is perfectly valid, and may even be the one that Councillors prefer, but it is already well represented, at the expense of other important views. There is never a perfect solution, but Lewesians are not even getting a fair solution.
On 30 May 2008 at 4:30pm Local wrote:
I love development wrote: 'if the town continues to paint pictures of twee antique shops etc etc, the town will die a death with more and more people spending their cash in other, more up and coming towns.'
But what LDC and the developers are saying between them reminds me of the American major in the Vietnam War - 'We had to destroy the town to save it.' I can understand the developers - their job is to take their profit and move on - but the councillors? Their decisions are more and more a mystery to me. Are they completely in the hands of their officers?
On 30 May 2008 at 5:56pm heffer wrote:
There are pro-development mantras that always surface at times like these. One is that there is a desire to create a "Museum Lewes" or it is something twee that protestors are trying to protect. You see it on here, read in in the local paper, hear it from the lips of local councilors and written in the bumpf from developers. I can't think of a single person who campaigns for more antiques shops or expensive decorative items.
And you gotta be kidding about stuffiness?! Have you ever been to anywhere truly stuffy? This place is vibrant and mixed and vocal. Always has been and always will be. Ask my Granny - lived here all her life and reckons the average friday night these days is tame compared to before the war - and don't get her started on pubs or bonfire 50 years ago. And historically its always been a place of rebellion and politics. I suggest if its too stuffy for you I Love Development you should move to Arundel or Rye maybe?!
On 30 May 2008 at 7:02pm sashka wrote:
Ironically it is some of the twee shop owners who have shut shops, so they can financially benefit from turning them into residential. Emp;orium, and Adamcevski being two good examples. Not twee shops... but NO shops!
I object to a lot of the modern developments, not becuase they are modern, but because they are just bad attempts at being trendy. Challenging modern design does not look like this cliche'ed proposal. We get shown one idea, and are supposed to believe that there are no better alternatives. Imagine going to buy a dress and only being offered one style, in one colour, It is very weak indeed. The basic problem is that Planning officers, Architects, Developers, Councillors and others like 'I Love Development ' seek to prevent anyone from the wide spectrum of alternative opinions from being heard. The very name seeks to upset, provoke, and overpower.
I have read the ridiculous pamphlet in the paper today, that we have all pressumably paid for, and ithe Council can't even get their figures right. it is a jumble of inaccuracies, and misleading comments. they have even illustrated their competance with properties that were involved in serious planning errors! They must be feeling very vulnerable/desperate indeed to produce it, I have never come across anything like it.
On 30 May 2008 at 8:40pm me wrote:
I am not against development per se. But heres a novel idea, how about houses/flats etc for people who have lived here all their lives. "affordable" housing is not affordable for everyday working folk. And maybe we should build stuff that is in keeping with the surrounding area unlike albion street etc. instead we get ugly cheap modern crap that pretty much only benefits the developer and probably certain "in the know" councillors (used notes in a brown envelope springs to mind "allegedly")
On 30 May 2008 at 11:01pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Some of the planning decisions that have been made are so appalling that "used notes in a brown envelope" is the most credible explanation for them.
And as for the Fiends of Lewes... presumably this lot are vaguely democratic, have an AGM at twhich they elect a chair etc? Isn't it time that Friends of Glenda and other like-minded souls who truly have the town's best interests at heart joined up en masse and staged a coup of sorts?
On 31 May 2008 at 12:21pm Local wrote:
Me and Annette have put their finger on it - we need developments that fit in with the town and provide genuine affordable housing for local people. And we need an investigation into how some of these decisions have been taken. Perhaps the fear of the second may achieve the first.
On 1 Jun 2008 at 7:01pm SHS wrote:
Build using flint & other stone from small local quarries, make all trees untouchable, stop council bribes (agreements to donate money for local infrastructure and services) and then the new developments might blend in better and be profitable at lower densities.
On 3 Jun 2008 at 10:50pm Tulip wrote:
Hello. Can a newbie join in? I've been reading your thread on the Harveys Yard malarkey. I went down to the consultation tonight and I must say, apart from the office block being rather high, I quite like the designs actually! They're very green and eco-friendly. Not sure I know what all the fuss is about. I'f they are going to develop the land, they might as well do it environmentally...
On 7 Jun 2008 at 8:47am Enoch wrote:
Tulip, I think you have answered your question, as you say in your thread "apart from the office block being rather high" - that is what all the fuss is about.
On 7 Jun 2008 at 4:13pm Local wrote:
Tulip said 'They're very green and eco-friendly...' These are the new buzzwords that every developer has to use. Apart from the developer saying the proposed develop is, in what particular ways did they seem to be 'green and eco-friendly'?
On 15 Oct 2008 at 9:56pm Anna Gourd wrote:
If the town continues to un-tweedify and move towards a one-colour modern developments with cliche'ed proposals then how will the shops do that and how
can modern residents of a modern lewes try really to move forward together without
what is being proposed? I cannot be the only one angry at the unfair move away
from important local community without the mindless and greedy attitudes of lewes
conuncil who are not so much hand in hand with the developers but cat in pocket!!
IF it all continues (and i am one who has to be persuaded at least a bit on this
point) in this direction then there will clearly not be any improvement for the current residents and there is a risk of everyone in lewes becoming, at least, disgruntled, to say the least. There are more and more of us who are completely
up in arms about the traffic flow conditions all around the proposed development
and i have to declare an interest in that there will be more cars past my car at
weekends and that cannot be good for me, or my car, or the local constituancy
as a whole. I propose to start a local pressure group with myself Anna Gourd as president and my good friend Alan Duton as Secretary to put local pressure through
action as a group. I would encourage you all to join, whatever your opinion on this
or other matters is and I promise that both Alan and I and the other members will
do our best for you. If you agree with me (us) and that this type of local action is
much needed then please help us by meeting and subscribing an annual fee of
twenty (20) pence (p) [20p] on a yearly basis, cancellable quarterly in advance.
Alan is arranging a direct debit mandate with the bank but a cash contribution
would be equally welcome. I want this as much as all of you do, and i am willing
to put wednesday afternoon and some time on monday (every 3rd week) aside
exclusively for this and I know Alan is very keen (but unable to make specific
time commitments, understandably) to push forwards. Our key mandate will
1) more traffic flow in the areas where it is not currently flowing
2) less development where it should not be occurring
3) more cute high price point shop
Thank you and welcome