Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

Pells Playground and Malling field

On 10 Mar 2017 at 8:24am Another B and B lqdy wrote:

Check out the plans for Pells Playground and Malling Field. These plans: see link, are part of 106 Agreement where Santon will pay for these good looking upgrades. You can have your say as it's a consultation. They look pretty good to me..

On 11 Mar 2017 at 5:13pm Sue wrote:

Where"s the link ?

On 11 Mar 2017 at 9:42pm Hooper wrote:

I found the link on t'internet. Looks good, I use the play area a lot, I hope it gets done before the rental prices increase too much and I can't afford to live here anymore!

On 11 Mar 2017 at 9:43pm Pedant wrote:

I suppose they do looked pretty good to you Another B and B lqdy. Do Santon pay you the same as Aqua or are you doing this for nothing?

On 11 Mar 2017 at 11:59pm Another bandb lady wrote:

For pity's sake Pedant, it's a public consultation. The plans have been on display, were commented on by those who bothered to go and look at them, and this is the second opportunity to comment again after the amendments, suggested by those who bothered to comment. All developers enter into a 106 agreement to provide some public benefits - it's the law. I have nothing to do with Santon or Aqua. Get over yourself.

On 12 Mar 2017 at 1:12am S106 wrote:

@ another bandb. The S106 agreement is no more than a "legal" bribe to pressurise the planners to accept yet another hideous development "by providing public benefits" A supplement to the infamous brown envelope.

On 12 Mar 2017 at 7:31am Another B and B lady wrote:

Dear god you lot. The plans for the Pells Playground and Malling Field Rec. look fantastic. Just be grateful. Obviously you don't have any children or grandchildren who will benefit from these upgraded facilities. What you feel about the individual developmemt/developers has nothing to do with it.

On 12 Mar 2017 at 7:33am Hooper wrote:

I don't work for santon either. I do have a couple of kids who play at the park most days though. I think they'll enjoy it, that's why I said it looks good. Towns get developed, that's what happens, otherwise they become unable to cope with an increasing and changing population. The council wouldn't have the funds to develop it in such a way. If it wasn't santon it would be someone else. What's the issue with santon or do you object to the development in general?

On 12 Mar 2017 at 11:20am s106 wrote:

@bandb. So the end justifies the means, would you condone a pretty playpark if it was funded by another corrupt method, such as drugs money. In case you hadn't realised I was commenting on the means of funding not what it looked like.