On 25 Jun 2009 at 1:00pm bonfirek wrote:
Gone a bit quiet about this today, i wonder why?!
On 25 Jun 2009 at 1:03pm Spongebob wrote:
Was it the planning descision on Tescos last night ? Did anyone go ? did Decent citizen throw his toys out of his pram ?
On 25 Jun 2009 at 1:19pm DAVE2 wrote:
Malling Brooks got planning permision but with a few conditions attached.
Tesco got defered for more reports, mainly on stats to do with how it will impact local shops v how will it benefit loacal shops?
A few locals threw toys out the Pram on both applications shouting insults at
On 25 Jun 2009 at 1:39pm bonfirek wrote:
Went on the Lewes Transition Town website earlier, what a load of hemp munching, socialist mumbo jumbo. These people should get a real job! Peak oil??!!! I don't even drive, that makes me considerably greener than most of those types!
On 25 Jun 2009 at 2:47pm Ed Can Do wrote:
So we can expect a load of construction traffic down Orchard Road and Spences Lane for the year or so I expect, right up until all of Malling floods after they've concreted over the natural drainage of Malling Brooks.
I don't suppose anyone knows what the conditions were and how likely they are to be actually upheld?
On 25 Jun 2009 at 4:16pm DAVE2 wrote:
the conditions they wanted was
To print on the buildings exactly the level water reached during last flood so people buying renting could see how much in the cr@p they would be.
additional footpaths etc into the area sorry cant remember more details
asked for 10k to contribute to flood warden scheme
some sort of underground monitoring station for water levels
Sorry I'm sure more people will add to it but I had to dash out to make a call so mised a few of them
But nothing that will stop the developer getting what he wants i'm sorry to say.
On 25 Jun 2009 at 5:13pm Decent Citizen wrote:
Just to clarify the situation,definiately NO insults were thrown by me!
On 25 Jun 2009 at 10:24pm Tax Payer wrote:
unbelievable - how in god's name can we stop this awful council of ours? - good one with Tesco deferral though
On 26 Jun 2009 at 8:27am sashimi wrote:
Cllr Jim Daly who is one of the two district councillors representing the ward that includes Malling and a former chair of planning seconded a motion to refuse planning permission at the meeting in May. At the beginning of the debate on Wednesday he announced he was switching and would support a motion to approve the application. Now aged 78 or 79, it's unlikely that he'll be standing for re-election in 2011. But if he does decide he'd like to soldier on, he'd better not try canvassing in Orchard Road or Spences Lane because residents there feel completely betrayed.
On 26 Jun 2009 at 8:49am Mystic Mog wrote:
What was his reason for changing his mind?
What conditions were applied?
On 26 Jun 2009 at 11:10am curtis wrote:
It's because there were no planning grounds to refuse the development. At the last meeting they asked for further information but none of the issues raised gave grounds for refusal. What would be the point of wasting ratepayers money by refusing it and then losing an appeal at a public inquiry, costing over £50,000. Seems Jim Daly has more sense. Malling residents should be grateful -they have the best flood protection in Lewes- better than Cliffe!
On 26 Jun 2009 at 11:47am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
How far along the rear of Spences Lane will this hideous development stretch? Will it eat up the open space at the rear of Spences Court, wher people walk their dogs?
On 26 Jun 2009 at 1:11pm LTLR wrote:
The hideous development go right along behide Spences Court, it starts behide the spinneys ends at far end of Spences court.
Malling residents do have flood protection from the river, but are not protected from the heavy rain fall and the run off, Land been flooded twice this year have Photos taken in February 2009 ofthe flooded land.
Jim Daly should surpport the people in the ward he represent,not follow party line, the sooner he goes the better, we will put the flags out.
On 26 Jun 2009 at 1:29pm Ed Can Do wrote:
Well with any luck Styles will never raise the cash to actually build anything anyway. What it does mean though is that the area behind Spences Court will get more and more overgrown and the paths there harder and harder to use, as obviously Styles doesn't want people using them so won't bother cutting back the bushes.
I assume there are no plans for any extra traffic to use Orchard Road as a result of this development because it's not exactly easy to get down as it is.
On 26 Jun 2009 at 2:25pm sashimi wrote:
Mystic Mog, you are the all-seeing one with a crystal ball, so you tell us what his reasons were. Jim just said that he didn't think there was any justification in refusing the application any further and therefore he would vote for it. Six weeks ago BEFORE anyone suggested it was necessary to get further guidance from the officers, he seconded a proposal to refuse the application. Was the first decision an irresponsible populist gesture aimed at currying favour with his electorate and the second a correction upon mature reflection or a sign of an overloaded mind? The decision of a ward member carries a lot of weight with other members of planning. A Seaford councillor is likely to think: "If the local bod isn't bothered, why should we intervene?" It would have been kinder and more politic if Jim had kept absolutely silent and just abstained when it came to a vote.
There are 26 conditions in the planning committee recommended by the officers plus most of the 8 that Ian Eiloart asked for. Some of these are general like checking out the materials with the planners or simple like drawing a line on all the buildings to show where the 2000 flood came to. Others are fairly formidable and without a conditions officer to enforce them we are probably in the same game as the Jam Factory: chasing the council to chase the developer to comply with the terms of the planning permission.
On 26 Jun 2009 at 5:21pm bonfirek wrote:
Sensible chap Cllr Daly, he realised that he couldn't vote to refuse the scheme because it would cost his voters and us tax payers a fortune in council tax when Styles lot won the appeal! You lot should be thanking Daly!
On 26 Jun 2009 at 5:37pm LTLR wrote:
bonfirek why dont you SOD OFF. Right Now
On 27 Jun 2009 at 10:06am Local2 wrote:
He wasn't that clever in the tesco application? He moved to refuse straight away and even after 3 hrs did not back down, one of the others tried to show him common sence that there was no planning ground to turn it down and an appeal would cost us tax payers tens of thousands!!! This would be bad enough but none of the committee seemed to realise it's tescos and it would cause our tax to be HUNDREDS of thousands!!! Now there trying to delay it rather than seeing common sence!
On 27 Jun 2009 at 11:03am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Given that they've approved this application, for more industrial units, it seems that they've accepted that indsutrial units are needed in the town. Consistency would require that they now reject the Tesco one, on the basis that it involves the demolition of some of the same.
Mind you, it's a long time since I expected consistency from LDC planners & councillors.
On 27 Jun 2009 at 1:40pm Local2 wrote:
Tesco are going to invest £350k back into the town centre for new business units that are actually habitable, dial a ride scheme and town centre management, I find that better than the other option of a massive tax rise! Now what's the sensible option? Approve an application that they can add there own conditions too or refuse it, let it go to a planning inspector that will approve it, then have no conditions and a nice tax rise? It's a lesser of 2 evils
On 27 Jun 2009 at 4:11pm bonfirek wrote:
Ah common sense at last!