Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

Phoenix Place or Phoenix Disgrace

On 9 May 2009 at 6:44pm Louielewes wrote:
Phoenix place ? It has been some time since I have visited Lewes ( My home town) And to my surprise Phoenix place is more shocking than ever, what a shambles of an industrial estate or should I say Industrial STATE, does anyone know what the hell is happening down there? I hear developers may knock it down even though from what I have seen, most of it is burnt to the ground.
Im as gutted as the buildings in phoenix place, whats happened to LEWES ??? : (
On 9 May 2009 at 7:58pm Rozzer wrote:
The place certainly needs developing - but not the development the company that owns much of it (Angel Property) proposes: 400 overprices flats on a flood plain. Take a look at the Lewes Matters website for information about the proposed development (now postponed because of the credit crunch) and the alarming history of Angel Property's disastrous effort at the Jam Factory in London.
On 10 May 2009 at 3:09pm Local wrote:
On the other hand there are plenty of people living nearby (like me) in the town who welcome the proposed development. Don't assume all are against.
On 10 May 2009 at 3:55pm sashimi wrote:
How can you use the handle 'local' and be in favour of this deplorable scheme. The landowner's strategy is to run the place down to the point where we are all screaming "Something must be done". Two of the units burnt down and haven't been fixed. But the truth is there are a lot of jobs down there - and real proper semi-skilled jobs in manufacturing, not bombing off to London every day or poorly paid work locally in retail. It wouldn't take much to clean the area up and repaint it and if a riverside walk were established as well, the whole of this section of the Town could be smartened up. No need to spend £200m on a batch of rabbit hutches and a new shopping centre which will either fail or kill off the High Street. As for the cinema, forget it: it's there on the plan as eye candy but it doesn't mean the developer has to build it.
On 10 May 2009 at 4:09pm Spongebob wrote:
It's all about opinions sashimi.....some may want it, some may not but as always, your opinion is the only one that counts.
On 10 May 2009 at 7:06pm Rozzer wrote:
Spongebob - opinions have to be based on facts or they are worthless. Sashimi has quite a few facts in the post. Angel Property have shown how unreliable they are in the Jam Factory development. Any facts in return - as opposed to opinions?
On 10 May 2009 at 7:15pm Spongebob wrote:
Opinions are opinions rozzer...it's all about what one thinks. Local would like to see the development for his/her own reasons and Sashami doesn't
On 10 May 2009 at 7:21pm Rozzer wrote:
'I like it' and 'I don't like it' are opinions but they are meaningless without facts to back them up. I'd love to see some development at the Phoenix, but one that preserved employment in the area and did not mean building homes for 1,500 to 2,000 people on a flood plain at prices that most ordinary people could not afford.
On 10 May 2009 at 7:45pm Spongebob wrote:
And that's your opinion Rozzer....my opinion is "i don't car what's built there as long as we don't end up with s**t twee shops that are ruining our high street"
On 10 May 2009 at 8:49pm Geoff wrote:
Spongebob, you announded some time ago that you only posted things to wind people up, so your comment is of no conequece to anyone, other than the easily wound up.
Rozzer, I agree with you about opinions. They are usually backed up with policy, fact, and law.
On 10 May 2009 at 9:24pm C S (Lewes) wrote:
I did not like the proposals for the Phoenix Quarter. In addition to the density of the proposed dwellings on the site, I felt that they were trying to relocate the town centre there which would kill any business in Cliffe High Street, School Hill and High Street (and environs). This would certainly meet with the approval of the planning departments eager approval of any change of use (business to residential) proposals in the town centre.
Thankfully the credit crunch has given us a little breathing space.
On 11 May 2009 at 5:28am Spongebob wrote:
Oh no Geoffrey, someone else suggested i was on a wind up, not me. So get your facts right (again) big boy.
On 11 May 2009 at 10:08am wet rag wrote:
didn't someone else suggest it, and you agreed, Spongebob? Either way, its what you do, big boy. and why no one takes you seriously.
On 11 May 2009 at 10:37am Spongebob wrote:
You know nothing about me wet blanket. No i didn't agree but if that's what people want to think, that's up to them, i find it absolutely hilarious that people think that im on a wind up.
On 11 May 2009 at 12:29pm wet rag wrote:
I think you mean you are easily wound up
On 11 May 2009 at 1:12pm Exposed wrote:
I think Spongebob is Charles Style and I claim my Lewes pound
On 11 May 2009 at 3:28pm Rozzer wrote:
Exposed: I think it's more likely that Louielewes is one of the Style clan.
On 11 May 2009 at 4:10pm In my opinion... wrote:
This is a forum where people share their opinions, I didn't realise we were only able to post if we could back everything up with facts, doubt there would be many people posting if that was the case! Sashimi, how can you say that someone can't be local just because they don't share your views!!
On 11 May 2009 at 5:55pm Rozzer wrote:
The usual procedure in an exchange of opinion is that A says, 'This is my opinion because this, this and this.' B replies, 'I disagree because this, this and this.' In that way opinion is tested and A and B may even reach an agreement. Just saying 'Tis' and 'Tisn't' is for children. I thought we were grown ups on here/
On 11 May 2009 at 6:02pm Spongebob wrote:
Now this is a classic example rozzer. I think you are a total knob. However, i don't have any evidence to back this up but this is my opinion.
On 11 May 2009 at 6:41pm In my opinion... wrote:
I think you could be right Spongebob, again I don't have any facts to put forward though!
On 11 May 2009 at 6:42pm Geoff wrote:
Rozzer gets it right again.
Spongebob, and 'In My opinion' are probably District Councillors.
On 11 May 2009 at 7:30pm Rozzer wrote:
Well, the evidence is there that you're both a couple of comedians. I hope you're not old enough to have the vote.
On 12 May 2009 at 11:24am Geoff wrote:
Probaby something to do with a planning application being considered tomorrow, relating to phoenix Estates. Weell, the site is a disgrace, and it is owned by Charles Style, so pressumably the Council will be taking some enforcement action on health and safety grounds because he has announced that his development plans are on indefinite hoild.
If 'Louiselewes' would like to give them a call, just let me know and I'll get their number for you.
On 12 May 2009 at 11:29am Rozzer wrote:
Geoff - I complained to LDC when Style left one of the buildings in a dangerous condition after the fire. They weren't much use. But you make a good point about the 'indefinite hold' and I think I'll get onto them again about the estate's condition.

12 posts left

Your response

You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool



waterloo badge 128:132
waterloo badge

The media is full of evidence about drug use amongst senior Tories… and yet they are the ones pontificating ! More Tory... more
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
Thomas Paine