Office to rent in Lewes

Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

Lewes Town to be excluded from the National Park

On 3 Jul 2007 at 10:39am Ed Bassford wrote:

The right decision in my opinion. But likely to be very contention.

On 3 Jul 2007 at 2:21pm Andy wrote:

This affects the stadium descision too doesn't it lord B ?.....sure i was reading on NSC somewhere about Falmer being excluded from the national park boundaries

On 3 Jul 2007 at 2:22pm ExiledFromLewes wrote:

I think there is anumber of people in Lewes who would favour Lewes being in the NP as they would like to see Lewes recognised for it's undoubted cultural, archeological and histrorical sites.
I think there is also an element where people may think that Lewes being in the NP could negate some of the more contentious developments/buildings in the town such as Phoenix devlelopment, HQ Gallery, etc...
As for the political spread i think the Conservatives opposed the proposals, whilst the Lib Dems (i think) and Greens supported. As for public opinion if you weigh the amount of time spent on this issue and compare it to the phoenix devleopment, incinerator then I think many Lewesians are yet to make their mind up on the matter and how living in an NP would potentially affect them.
Why fdo you think it was the right decision Lewes not pretty enough or would add to much bureaucracy. Having worked in the Lake District NP when I was younger i was surprised to find people who dislike living in a NP and the extra regulations that brings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the stadium I signed a truce with The Super K, which I have only lapsed the once. In that post i noted that the changed boundaries does make the stadium even more of a dead cert now (as Andy you read right Falmer has been left out, whilst Toads Valley has been included), although I don't think Hazel Blears can refer to this new proposal in the five days she has left to make the decision.

On 3 Jul 2007 at 7:08pm Ed Bassford wrote:

Why is this the right decision?
The "undoubted cultural, archaeological and historical sites" already enjoy protection by virtue of their location in conservation areas or their status as listed buildings. A National Park is designed to promote landscape protection and public access. I can't for the life of me see how that is relevant to Brooks Road Industrial Estate or the Nevill. Nor can I imagine how National Park-style town planning would serve most of the residents of the town effectively. Most developments are small scale things, like a lock-up garage. How can anyone make a meaningful assessment of a lock-up garage on the Landport Estate against criteria that were drawn up to protecting the heritage landscape of a National Park?

On 3 Jul 2007 at 7:35pm ExiledfromLEwes wrote:

You are correct that a number of historical buildings in Lewes have protective status in Lewes, my old home itself is in a conservation area so it is debatable whether Lewes should be in or not.
However your original post concerned Lewes's removal from the NP and in your own post you stated that it would be contentious. Whether it is right or not a number of people in this town are against over development and therefore they see the NP as something that could potentially deter developers from coming in.
You seem to have posted that it's exclusion was right in your judgement, but gave no explanations why? You also went onto say it would be contentious but don't say why?. In my first post I stated that people probably need to know the issues better, and also tried to explain why people would be for the development as the decision was in your view contentious.

On 3 Jul 2007 at 8:40pm Ed Bassford wrote:

My presumption that this would be contentious is based on the fact, reported by the Inspector in his opening sentence dealing with the Lewes issue, that "only St John Without Parish made a duly made objection to the inclusion of Lewes in the PSDNP". Presumably all the other representations made to the Inquiry were in favour.
I can't imagine that the supporters of inclusion will simply accept the recommendation.

On 3 Jul 2007 at 9:19pm For The Record wrote:

Is this official?
If so, I am outraged - Lewes is one of the finest market towns in the country.
You state that the "Conservation Area" status will protect Lewes town - how? The Conservation Area means absolutely nothing - it is a paper excercise that is not enforced by the District Council. I suspect that is why NP status has not been granted yet (The South Downs NP prededed the New Forest NP application - the latter was introduced and enforced some years ago).
Re: The Stadium - has anyone performed an impact study about additional visitors to the town seeking a meal and/or drink before/after a match, or the likely consequences of same?

On 3 Jul 2007 at 9:31pm Ed Bassford wrote:

Is this official?
.
It's the recommendation in the Inspector's Report of the Public Inquiry into the NP boundary.
.
Defra have opened a consultation process (due to end in mid August) that invites comments on proposals by the Inspector to INCLUDE NEW AREAS within the National Park. But there seems to be no further consultation planned on those areas that are now recommended for EXCLUSION - presumably because these areas have already been the subject of evidence giving at the Inquiry.
.
.
As far as the economic impact of the Falmer Stadium is concerned, my recollection is that the evidence presented to the Inquiry into that project identified the benefit to the local economy as being worth �24.4 million a year. But I'm not sure how much of this will land up in Lewes. I don't think LDC were in the business of quantifying any stadium benefits. The work was mainly done by Brighton & Hove City Council and Sussex Enterprise.

On 4 Jul 2007 at 12:41am ExiledfromLewes wrote:

Thank you for clarifying above the facts regarding the NP and why you thought the decision would be contentious. However reading For the Records post, I have to say whilst there are proponants in the town for inclusion probably green and countryside groups the majority of people in all likelihood didn't know about the inspectors report. Perhaps there should have been greater debate and maybe people in the town will now become more active.