On 26 Jun 2008 at 1:39pm Basil Fawlty wrote:
If you live on the south side of lansdown place you must have bought the property knowing that it's next to an industrial site let alone the railway. What do you expect to see out of your window - herds of wildebeest galloping majestically across the Serengeti? I do not understand how people who choose to live in towns can then demand to have a view of the country. Nimbys! Move to a village, or better still - Canada! My garden gnome and I love it there.
On 26 Jun 2008 at 2:16pm Taff wrote:
Ah Canada......... the land that gave us Leonard Cohen(Very Large Yawn).
On 26 Jun 2008 at 2:27pm Basil Fawlty wrote:
Thank you Taff for your quick wit and repartee.
On 26 Jun 2008 at 4:45pm Local wrote:
Basil - But the worst thing to see would be a massive development surrounded by flood water.
On 26 Jun 2008 at 4:59pm x wrote:
Well given that it's no secret it floods what's the problem if some donuts decide to build there and then get flooded?
On 26 Jun 2008 at 6:01pm Local wrote:
X - because it won't be the donut who builds there, or the donut council that gives permission to build there, who suffers but the poor s*ds who are conned into moving there.
On 26 Jun 2008 at 8:33pm sashka wrote:
Here we go again,
Planning law requires that proposals meet planning policy. The DBB proposal clearly doesn't. It is very unusual to be able to protect a view, but residents in Lansdown Place are entitled to the amenity of daylight, and a building that meets the requirments of policy.
This development is fatally flawed, which is why it wasn't approved ages ago. Mr Style has created a complete nightmare for residents in his development in London, that has resulted in residents taking Court action, and years of grief. it is still unresoled, and an entire block of flats has never been occupied,
The flood issue has not been resolved on the phoenix site, which is why it has not progressed. Building on this site without proper provision for flooding would cause damage and financial loss to other properties. Do you support that?
One of the 'flood protection' methods Mr Style offered was for occupant s of his development to go upstairs and await rescue by helicopter.
A developer who clearly does not take Lewes District Council seriously, or residents.
On 27 Jun 2008 at 5:39am SHS wrote:
Shocking new developments in peoples' back yards are designed to (a) increase revenue from council tax and utility taxes via the new over-crowded occupants and (b) increase revenue from stamp duty as most of the surrounding residents sell their homes. I fully support the Lansdowne Place residents as this site could easily be developed without blocking out daylight. The issue is primarily that it is arguably a more prominent location than Lewes Castle. Perhaps Lewes railway station is due to have the same future as the bus station.....
On 27 Jun 2008 at 9:03am Basil Fawlty wrote:
I would have thought that "new" developments were for people to live in or work in. Homes and jobs. The fact is that any development of this brownfield site would be higher than the industrial yard that the houses look out over - unless it were subterranean. Whoever bought houses there surely couldn't be so naive as to think that it would stay like that forever? This isn't about light - this is about change. Nimbys!
On 27 Jun 2008 at 10:07am sashka wrote:
The flaw in your arguement is that you are expressing opinion about what you would be prepared to see out of your back window, and assuming that everyone would share your opinion. In fact you are pressuming that residents would be able to see anything other than the looming blank wall of the back of a shopping precinct
It is irrelevent when occupants bought their homes (some have lived there for many years) There is planning policy in place, and planning law, to protect them. The developer has disregarded this in his proposal.
NIMBY means 'not in my back yard' It does not mean 'I am unreasonable" If you think these people are NIMBY's because they want their rights, and planning law to be correctly adhered to, then I am sure they would be happy to be called NIMBY's.
Change can be good and bad, and upsetting residents with cliches that bear no relation to the facts of the case is unfair, and ill informed.
I wonder if you would use the NIMBY and 'change' arguements if someone proposed building a tower block next to your picturesque hotel in Torquay, obscuring the sea view?
On 27 Jun 2008 at 10:38am Local wrote:
That old mantra 'change' - it's not an argument, it's a slogan. I'm old enough to remember when 'change' meant tower blocks of council flats - the developers liked them, the councils liked them, the architects liked them and anyone who opposed them was resisting 'change'. Now they're pulling them down because families couldn't live in them. Destroying Lewes is certainly 'change' but it's one that future generations may curse us for.
On 27 Jun 2008 at 11:47am Basil Fawlty wrote:
Of course developers need to follow planning law. If the developers do just that are the residents of Lansdown Place going to stop complaining? I think not. Nimby's!
On 27 Jun 2008 at 6:16pm 1264 wrote:
Basil, where do you live? Let us know and we can direct the planning department, 'progressive' architects and greedy developers to your house where they'll find someone who has their full support to build whatever they like in your back garden.
On 27 Jun 2008 at 7:29pm s.oliver wrote:
It is interesting to read the shifting sands of Basils arguemen, as it is so like thae views of some of our more arrogant Councillors, and Planning officers. It is based on the premise that anyone who complains(apart from himself) is wrong.
Following that logic, if a dodgy cheap builder did some really badly designed alteration work in his hotel ( perhaps redevelopment of the dining room and the lobby), his wife would be a whinging NIMBY if she came to the correct conclusion that the design was terrible, the materials cheap, and the standard of work unacceptable.
I suspect Basil may like crappily built and designed rubbish because someone who told him that they were of the architectural aristoctracy said that such designs could only be appreciated by the coinnoseur.
Luckily for Lewes, many residents are finally realising that our planning process is as well run as Basils kitchen, so is not a place to expect good service.
On 29 Jun 2008 at 11:48am Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
NIMBY is an American term and not applicable to Sussex.
In Sussex, we have back gardens, patio gardens or (for some) paddocks. We do NOT have back yards - that is for Northerners or Americans.
So, no such thing as a NIMBY in Sussex but there are many people duely concerned about inappropriate development in this town.
Basil Fawlty - suspect your true identity is, or is related to, Style/Oakley/Elliott/Rees/Planning officer/other greedy selfish b'stard.
On 29 Jun 2008 at 11:51pm lopster wrote:
yeah develop like mad Basil GREAT ides - build lots of houses for people to buy and live in, bring money to the town let the poor developers shaft some more innocents and move on to rape another corner of England BUT (and its one big But Basil - (just like the one you speak out of) more housing in an area also requires that there are more Doctors/dentists/school places/car parking spaces/public transport availibility/shops/amenmities/parks/dog dung bins/police men (and women)/trains to London/fire service, paramedics and NCP skunks - good one Basil - LOADS of room in Lewes for all that isn't there... NOT - STOP the development - support the buxom blonde in the red dress
On 30 Jun 2008 at 2:43pm Enoch wrote:
Seems like Basil is the only one who thinks that way. No-one expects a view of the county and they like the station and are not completely against the development of Harveys, however, no-one expects a 5 storey office block dumped in their back garden - go with existing building heights then people don't mind. What grates these people is the fact that their hands are tied if they want to renovate/extend their houses as they are in a conservation area but the developers can stick up whatever they like which is totally out of sync with the existing area.
You have not answered the question of where you live Basil, lets see if you have the guts to tell us.
On 8 Jul 2008 at 1:29pm Ben wrote:
Everyone needs to calm down and stop abusing each other on the internet. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Harvey's is a vacant bit of land and as such should be brought back into use. It needs to be not too tall, and not too close to the houses on Lansdowne Place. It needs to be sustainable in all respects: there must be demand for the proposed uses, the flood risk must be dealt with, and it should conserve energy. The architecture needs to be in keeping with the character of the area without resorting to historical pastiche. The planning process is there to deal with these issues.
If everyone who cares about this site - one way or the other - stopped being so hysterical, narrow-minded and nasty, and channeled their energy into helping make sure the development is appropriate, they could do a lot of good for the site and Lewes in general.
On 10 Jul 2008 at 11:00am Hybrid wrote:
wow, thank you Ben for bringing an ounce of sense to a never ending argument, people are NIMBY'S and will complain about anything, everyone has a differing opinion about everything, if development satisfied every arguement then it wouldn't happpen or would end up being so bad it would be complained about! People should encourage and support the planners and the planning process to deliver 'appropriate' design, people should promote good examples of modern buildings within the town and then the planners should be very strict on enforcing the quality of any end product that receives permission.
On 10 Jul 2008 at 1:48pm zola wrote:
So all we can do is keep an eye on the Sussex Express,see the planning applications,and object if we feel the need to.And that will do.Correct?
On 11 Jul 2008 at 3:33pm Hybrid wrote:
Even better you could wipe your arse with it to save buying toilet roll! Sorry, the local rag seems to jump on the 'band wagon' to fuel local anger about generally everything people are interested in, most recently planning and local schemes, with a rather bias slant, often misquoting and misrepresenting people and their opinions, probably deliberate incompetance to sell papers. By all means read away.
I suggest Check the planning register, thoroughly read planning documents, be open minded and form your own opinions! Don't become a nimby (if not so already) or a sheep! Look at the wider context and ask questions