On Wed 6 Mar at 1:48pm Stephen Watson wrote:
I've now had a good look through the Lewes Neighbourhood Plan (all 173 pages of it) and I shall certainly be voting in favour tomorrow. I didn't take any part in drafting it, by the way, but it seems to me on the whole to be a good piece of work and one that has had a lot of thought put into it. I like its concept of "Lewes Low Cost Housing" which defines "affordable" in terms of local incomes rather than the government's definition of 80% of market value. Because houses have become a speculative asset, market value bears no relation to what local people can really afford. I also like the way the plan aims to avoid overbearing development in the town centre, and protects historic flint walls. The plan protects local community assets like St. Mary's Social Centre and greenspaces (incuding Bonfire sites), and also key local views. It also list a number of nitty-gritty local projects all of which seem worthwhile.
It's important to note that if this plan doesn't win its referendum it does NOT mean that new development won't take place. What it will mean is that the planning decisions will be taken by the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) in Midhurst, according to what they think is best for us. And who know who will be in charge of the SDNPA by 2033?
I'm not sure whether a referendum really is the best way to decide on a lengthy and complex document like this but, since it has been called, I shall be voting in favour.
On Wed 6 Mar at 5:27pm David2 wrote:
That's a good summary by Stephen. I voted for it with my postal vote.
On Thu 7 Mar at 8:21am Dave wrote:
If you donít understand the proposals or donít think itís been communicated well enough (I still have no idea what itís for) you can put a cross in both boxes and spoil your vote.
That will send a clear message that it hasnít been produced in a way everyone can understand.
On Thu 7 Mar at 10:05am janet street preacher wrote:
Am I right in thinking if we vote Yes all the roads in Lewes will be 20mph and the limit will be vigourously enforced.
Iím voting NO if thatís the case
On Thu 7 Mar at 11:28am tobnac wrote:
No JSP, it doesn't mention speed limits at all, except in the context of two of the proposed housing sites.
All in all it is a well intentioned document that doesn't contain anything to scare the horses. It arguably promises more than it can deliver, but thre's nothing wrong with aspiration.
The real meat of the document is the list of proposed sites for new housing. If you've not seen it before it's worth a look, but most, if not all, of the sites have been previously discussed in terms of their suitability for housing so I don't think there should be many surprises.
On Thu 7 Mar at 1:27pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I think that using a local measure for housing affordability is a great idea, and I was quite shocked to see how low the average local income is (£23k iirc, and £30k per household).
The disparity between income and housing costs is favoured by some planners as a measure of affluence or poverty, and I think this demonstrates a lot of hidden hardship in Lewes, if not outright poverty.
On Thu 7 Mar at 3:54pm janet street preacher wrote:
I heard we would lose quite a bit of parking in town if it gets approved, is that correct?
On Thu 7 Mar at 6:52pm Bert wrote:
Apparently some things may happen, some things won't and be objected too. So it's not exactly a precise document. Losing car parking and gaining more people/ houses who won't be able to either afford a car and definitely won't be able to park it. Isn't a great plan. I've voted NO by post. Of course, it's not a once in a generation referendum, and they can always have another one if they don't like the reply they get. I'd be interested in the turnout too. It's a shame some folks aren't able to better themselves salarywise, but they're probably happy.
On Sat 9 Mar at 8:40am Bandit wrote:
The plan includes building houses on the station car park
On Mon 11 Mar at 9:54am Fairmeadow wrote:
The plan includes building houses OVER the station car park, not ON it.
Could affect the view from the planning department's windows in Southover House but, as they are always saying, there is no right to a view.