On 31 May 2015 at 12:54pm Rosalyn St Pierre wrote:
As a county councillor I am only involved in planning applications that have an impact on infrastructure, but I also support residents in my division. Lewes District drew up a core plan identifying housing need and allocation under the SHLAA. However, these plans get thrown into disarray when there is a "windfall" application, i.e. where a large house is demolished and smaller units built. This has happened in Seaford a fair bit. In addition an application can be heard for housing on a brownfield site. Last week LDC agreed 49 houses, plus commercial buildings for workshops etc on Hamsey Old Brickworks just south of South Chailey village. At the same LDC meeting an application for 110 houses at Ringmer was rejected and among the reasons was the unsuitability of the site for that number of houses (86 is designated in the village plan). What is important but rarely discussed is the predicted age profile of LDC. There is a growing elderly population (see East Sussex in figures) but little planning to encourage people to move from family size houses. Even the elderly do not want tiny or cramped or dark flats and do want some access to gardens if jointly owned etc. What is vital is to keep community centres, such as St Mary's and Malling Community Centre and not turn any of those sites to housing.
Apologies for the length, perhaps I should get out more, but for those really interested watch recording of the LDC Planning Committee meeting debating the Ringmer application on the web
On 31 May 2015 at 4:38pm townie wrote:
Never understood why the area behind the Green man in Ringmer isn't developed. It would link up the Broyle estate with Bishops lane and provide a decent housing and commercial area.
On 31 May 2015 at 6:45pm Sussex Jim wrote:
You can get out more now, Rosalyn, as the buses you want everyone to use now run through Barcombe to Uckfield and East Grinstead.
On 31 May 2015 at 7:05pm That's me in the Corner wrote:
Thankfully Rosalyn, Malling Community Centre is owned by Lewes Town Council so LDC can't get their grasping mitts on it.
On 31 May 2015 at 8:04pm Pailb wrote:
I think it's a good idea to use the community centre site in Nevill for affordable housing. To be honest of people want a community centre they can raise money and build one themselves. I would rather see affordable housing. Thanks.
On 31 May 2015 at 8:53pm Minxorcist wrote:
Are the 250 houses planned for Old Malling Farm going to be affordable?
On 31 May 2015 at 10:22pm Belladonna wrote:
Pailib - hello ? Usually community centres ARE (by definition) supported by the community. Often their buildings have been funded by public subscription , or via a local council through OUR taxes. Very often council owned public assets have come into council hands via Bictorian benefactors etc. it's dreadful that these publically owned assets are now to be sold off.
On 31 May 2015 at 10:55pm AuntieAviator wrote:
"Are the 250 houses planned for Old Malling Farm going to be affordable?"
No, no-one will be able to afford them. They will simple stand empty and unsold.
On 1 Jun 2015 at 8:11am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Every one of those 250 houses will lead to several vehicles a day feeding out onto Malling Hill or Phoenix Causeway. Several hundred extra school places will be required, unless they're all bought by dinky types. That will probably be an extra 500 or more people needing appointments at Lewes GPs. And unless they're all cyclists, loads more cars trying to park when they come into the town centre.
If Santon get their way, the impact will be trebled.
Unless these issues are addressed, life in Lewes will change irrevocably.
On 1 Jun 2015 at 10:22am the kronic wrote:
So where do you propose our children, born and bred in the town, live ACT ? The local bus shelters ?
On 1 Jun 2015 at 1:14pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I think we should have a local residence qualification, like they do in some places.
I've seen properties advertised in estate agents' windows in places like the Isle of Purbeck and North Yorkshire that explain that prospective purchasers will have to meet certain requirements relating to the length of time they have lived in the area or they won't be able to buy.
I also think that any new development should be split 50/50 between properties for sale and social housing, and that social housing should be prioritised for those with a strong local connection, like it is in the villages.
If that had been for all the developments that have taken place over the last 30 years, housing prices would not have shot up the way they have and young people could afford to stay here.
On 1 Jun 2015 at 1:24pm Southover Queen wrote:
There is another consideration though, and that is that a lot of the pressure in Lewes and surrounding areas is coming from people who have themselves been pushed out of their own home towns, such as London. The value of the house my parents bought for a couple of thousand 50 or 60 years ago is now in multiple millions. That's unaffordable for most ordinary people in London, so they move out.
On 1 Jun 2015 at 8:04pm little wren wrote:
Can't we just call social housing the original name of council housing. We need pretty, decent sized houses with gardens for children to play in and veggies to grow. Houses for life tenancies and stop using the old story there's no room, there is plenty of room for everyone to have a decent home in a rich country. 7% own 84% of the land
On 1 Jun 2015 at 10:07pm Parker Morris wrote:
Remember them ? used to relate to sizes for council house accommodation. That's why all the village council houses are long gone. And for the record they could be bought pre Thatcher, at full market value by a tenant and a few were.
On 2 Jun 2015 at 8:31am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Wow, that's a blast from the past! The Parker Morris standards specified 110 square feet for a double bedroom, many private new-builds have bedrooms smaller than that.
They also included a minimum amount of cupboard space, so those council houses always had plenty of storage space. The older ones also tended to have garden stores: I remember many of the houses where I grew up had 2 big, brick-built outhouses, one for coal or wood (no central heating back then) and one to keep the pram in (think big Silver Cross jobs, that bore as much resemblance to a modern buggy as a Rolls-Royce does to a Smart car).
The bigger outbuilding at my mother-in-law's 1950's built council house can accommodate 4 motorbikes, which was handy as her late husband used to race them. Mr C-T's "best bike" lived there until quite recently.
They were great little houses, and remarkably well-built. If only they still built houses like that.
On 2 Jun 2015 at 9:38am Coal man wrote:
Coal A C-T ? you were lucky, we only had coke.
On 2 Jun 2015 at 5:41pm Local Resident wrote:
St Mary's Social centre is entirely self funding, I believe. I understand that the centre committe manage, run, and maintain the buildings/site at nil cost to the Council, and that the Centre receives no regular Council subsidies or support.
In fact, the Social Centre pays rent to the Council, so the site as it stands is far from being a drain on Council funds, in fact it is quite the opposite.
So, as things appear to stand, a busy Social Centre that provides a meeting place for numerous social interest groups and a number of youth group activities, that is home to a lonstanding and well-subscribed Playgroup, and that also provides an evening/weekend Social Club for many town residents, plus hall that is available for hire for weddgn rceptions, jumble sales etc, is at threat of being replaced by maybe 8 dwellings.
Thus, rather than being a site that is providing a service to (literally) many dozens of local families every week, the whole site might be sold and redeveloped, to provide housing for a mere 8 households.
The potential sale may include provision of a new Social Centre as part of the sale/redevelopment package, but unless the total floor area and garden area (garden is used by the playgroup as often as weather permits) are at least the same as those of the current Social Centre and Hall buildings, then any new building will fail to provide the same degree of service./space/flexibility.
And any need to relocate any/all of the user groups during any redevelopment may well spell disaster as users: 1. May be unable or unwilling to travel to any alternate site furtehr form home (even for a fixd period), and/or 2. May seek places in alternate groups during any hiatus, and thus the relocated groups may quickly wither away or prove unviable by teh tiem they can return to any new building(s) on the current site.
Please leave St Mary's alone, I don't use it myself, but I know very many local families who do!
On 3 Jun 2015 at 8:29am AuntieAviator wrote:
The problem is not a residence qualification, or anything - it is simply that we do not build enough houses, and haven't done for generations. We barely manage more than 100,000 a year. In France, a country with a similar population, it's more like 300,000.
On 3 Jun 2015 at 1:58pm Thnkyou Auntie wrote:
I didn't know that about France and look how big the country is compared to us !
On 7 Jun 2015 at 9:49am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I suspect it's easier to find land to build on in France, as the population density is so low.