On 6 Mar 2013 at 2:56pm mildmanneredchap wrote:
The St Mary's social centre row has made it into Private Eye. 8 March edition, p13.
On 6 Mar 2013 at 3:24pm Wince wrote:
Good. LDC deserve a moment in the spotlight. Shame our useless local papers don't cover local news stories. and we have to rely on a DFL. (Dispatch From London) If the social centre is completely safe, then LDC should make that completely clear . But they haven't so at best have made a lot of people worried and at worst have been very naughty and misleading. I look forward to reading our Council be embarrassed yet again. (previous entries include the Glenda sign LDC bullying scandal, and Cllr Page's and Jenny Rowland's interesting and pathetically unchallenged interpretation of democracy)
On 6 Mar 2013 at 3:29pm mildmanneredchap wrote:
To be fair, Wince, the Sussex Express has given pretty good coverage to this issue.
On 6 Mar 2013 at 3:46pm Ratty wrote:
I see the Glyndebourne wind turbine was in the previous edition of the Eye. Bit of a one sided view I reckon.
On 6 Mar 2013 at 5:44pm Peasant wrote:
The Glyndebourne turbine seems very popular in Lewes. But then it doesn't disfigure the Lewes landscape. If there was one atop Cliffe Hill you could all admire it, and if the golf club were to benefit from the same subsidies that Glyndebourne farms so successfully, membership could be much cheaper.
Sadly it won't happen. The SDNP has very sensible views about the [lack of] utility of on-shore turbines.
On 6 Mar 2013 at 5:55pm In the know wrote:
It's not the council who have scared people or done something secretly. It the trustees who have sacred people by saying the social Center could be nocked down and replaced by 14 houses. Planning law doesn't allow that. What was under exploration was how could it be improved and could it provide affordable housing as well as a sustainable centre with access to all. Instead a few people with a vested interest have put the fear of god up everybody to protect the status nimby quo. Why don't people actually see what's on offer and then choose as has been offered.
On 6 Mar 2013 at 6:19pm Sparky wrote:
"In the know", where did you come up with "planning law doesn't allow that" Perhaps you can quote some specifics to put all our minds at rest eh.
If we wait to see what's on offer , believe me it will be too late, which is probably what you're hoping. Also if as you say it could provide affordable housing, (don't make me laugh on that one), with a sustainable centre, what do we do whilst it's knocked down & rebuilt. Are they going to do it overnight? Anyhow it's already a sustainable centre with access to all.
On 6 Mar 2013 at 7:15pm In the know wrote:
That's it don't listen, just spout conjecture. Why don't you try and learn something and write to the council and ask for specifics, or do you just prefer to sit on you back side and speculate. Any redevelopment clearly couldn't be done over night but neither could a new roof or major repair work, I assume you could make do then for the betterment, but as it wasn't thought of here its no good. Laugh all you like, affordable housing could well be a by-product of a sustainable new fully DDA compliant social centre. But your bigoted position is not to allow people to find out. No matter how twisted you think the planning laws, even in your most opinionated view of life you know there would have to be consultation and its part of the national park so there could be no short cuts that you are divisively suggesting in your nimby rant. On this site people are talking about need for affordable housing and you just dismiss it out of hand because people don't actually care when it comes to disturbing their little suburban utopia. Sad and selfish!
On 6 Mar 2013 at 7:57pm Dave wrote:
Hmmm, 'In the know', sounds very like Cllr Page, something about the writing style and attitude is similar to other pronouncements from the LDC Leader.
On 6 Mar 2013 at 8:08pm Hong Kong Phooey wrote:
I think it's Rosemarie the telephone operator
On 6 Mar 2013 at 9:06pm queequeg wrote:
It would be quite challenging to design 14 houses with parking and all the existing facilities on this small site. Perhaps in the know could advise us how this might be achieved.
On 6 Mar 2013 at 9:17pm In the know wrote:
Only waffles have speculated 14. Who knows how many but don't you love a challenge. As I understand it the point of the exercise is to find out. I suspect if the answer was known conultation could occur. I'm sure it's been stated, nothing is planned. I'm also sure the competitive collective of creative experts can far better imagine and propose inspirational solutions than those obsessed with vested interest, no accountability and nimbytastic vision.
On 6 Mar 2013 at 10:16pm Another fine mess wrote:
The notion of affordable housing is nonsensical. It can only be 'affordable housing' if the price is 'affordable' , that only people who need 'affordable housing' have access to it, and that it remains 'affordable' if it changes hands.
I would call that Council Housing. It was a wonderful idea that i definitely support, but we all know what happened to it. Is Cllr Page looking at increasing Council Housing stock that could actually be kept affordable in a meaningful way?
For whatever reason people have become concerned about their social centre, and whatever the future for that building may or may not be, the situation has been badly handled because of a secretive and rather patronising Council leader who clearly does not have people skills.
That is the problem with thinking you know better than everyone else, including your elected colleagues. Councillors should not be putting up with this, because their electorate is increasingly telling them that it is not appropriate.
Nimby is a ridiculous outdated and meaningless cliche usually used by people without a fact based argument). People have every right to be concerned about what is in their back yard.It is that concern and interest that results in better changes to our back yards, even if that includes up-grading a Social centre.
It is a leaders job to explain what they are doing clearly, not rely on 'clever' ambiguous comments that we are all familiar with from 30 year old Whitehall sitcoms. I do wish politicians would realise that times have changed. They would avoid getting into so much hot water.
LDC only have themselves to blame for the concern about St Mary's .People who thought themselves just as clever a the current bunch endorsed shoddy applications, such as the now defunct and unwanted community hall replacement, the HQ Gallery.
It is hardly surprising therefore that there is legitimate concern by anyone in the town that they may end up with the next HQ -white-elephant dumped on their doorstep.
I certainly would want that pointless derelict monolith wedged in next to my back yard, and I doubt Councillor Page would either. Maybe someone would like to ask him?
On 6 Mar 2013 at 10:38pm In the know wrote:
What a load of nonsense, you seem to be mixing up history, lack of knowledge on affordable housing and character assignation in some negative spurious waffle and if you took your head out of your back side for five minutes you'd know nimbyism is very much alive and well. Anyway well done, I hope you feel better now.
On 6 Mar 2013 at 10:54pm Emerging from the mire wrote:
Maybe it's not fare to tar this administration with the sins of the previous lacklustre one that were in power for 20 years. New broom and all that.
On 6 Mar 2013 at 11:32pm Expat Two wrote:
In The Know, you certainly have a pompously inflated opinion of Lewes councillors, and a contempt for Lewesians, are you sure you're not this Page chap?
In the meantime, what's 'character assignation'?
Is that what councillors get from their media advisors?
On 7 Mar 2013 at 7:14am Expat Twot wrote:
Have you read yourself, talk about pompous. Looks like a spelling mistake, pedant!
On 7 Mar 2013 at 7:54am ITK wrote:
Hey, at least they stand for election, hold themselves to standards, account and work hard within a legal framework for the benefit of the community as best they can. Much better than the alternative, being run by a bunch of bigoted, vacuous, factless meddlers that just stick their noses in when it suits them. Anyway I thought expat had a meaning so either you not here or not from here so what's it to you?
On 7 Mar 2013 at 9:30am me myself and irene wrote:
"hold themselves to standards, account and work hard within a legal framework for the benefit of the community as best they can
. What planet do you live on?
"run by a bunch of bigoted, vacuous, factless meddlers that just stick their noses in when it suits them". Thats more like it. That pretty much covers all our modern politicians.
On 7 Mar 2013 at 11:25am Sparky wrote:
In the know......I don't think I've ever heard someone spout such a load of b*****ks. What is your involvement with LDC? I asked you about specific planning laws as you brought the subject up but you decided to ignore my request and suggested I ask the council instead. Obviously another smart arsed prat who tries to make us believe they have some knowledge when in fact they come across as having none.
On 7 Mar 2013 at 11:58am Anotherplanet wrote:
ITK. I admire your belief, but it is not born out by fact. I doubt our Councillors are corrupt, but they are clearly completely clueless when it comes to rigorously questioning what they are told. There is a culture in LDC of refusing to admit error. That is never a good strategy. The advantage of having lived in other towns is that I can compare the goings on here with better examples. If you have ever contacted an LDC Councillor about a problem you will know what I mean.. If you ask any Councillor to look further or deeper into an issue, they do not, and they are regularly being threatened with the Standards Board to keep them in line. It is interesting that the Town Council has more bottle than LDC , the difference being the culture within the two organisations. No one expects perfection, but LDC really does have a long way to go, and this shocking new secret top twosome of decision making makes my point perfectly for me. Now Councillors of any calibre would be putting up with that.
On 7 Mar 2013 at 1:22pm numberjack wrote:
For those interested, here is the Private Eye article......
WHOLE LOTTA LOVE
James ??Jimmy? Page, Tory leader of Lewes district council, is cross with the 4,000 people (nearly a quarter of the Sussex town??s population) who signed a petition demanding that a popular, well-used council-owned community centre, St Mary??s, not be sold off, torn down and replaced by housing.
??I find it absolutely tragic that local people are being totally misinformed and scared into signing a petition that is not true,? he told the Sussex Express. Responding to ??ridiculous rumours?, he said on local radio that the council had ??no plans to demolish St Mary??s?.
Locals might have more faith in Cllr Page??s reassurances were it not for the existence of two confidential council documents, seen by the Eye.
In one, the ??Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment?, the council notes that, notwithstanding the existence of a 15-year lease with the community association which runs the centre, the site ??could become available for development... Before 31 March 2014?. In the other ??not for publication? document, ??Sites for Inclusion in Promotion Agreement Tender? St Mary??s is described as suitable for ??10-14 dwellings?. The author notes: ??Local resistance anticipated to any redevelopment.?
In June last year Page and council chief exec Jenny Rowlands sold off a popular recreation ground in Newhaven with only a 14-day ??consultation period? - leaving no time for opponents to organise a campaign. Why anyone might mistrust Page and Rowlands - who, as Eye 1318 reported, are wont to take key decisions during private discussions à deux ?? is a mystery.
On 7 Mar 2013 at 1:48pm Sparky wrote:
Thanks for your post "numberjack". Your bit about 14 day "consultation period" in Newhaven re-iterates my point previously "If we wait to see what's on offer , believe me it will be too late".
I await your response "In the know"
On 7 Mar 2013 at 3:16pm Mildmanneredchap wrote:
Seems to me that it is fair enough -- perhaps even an obligation -- for any council to take stock of what property it owns and to estimate what, theoretically, it might be worth if put to other uses. But Cllr Page seems to have zero PR skills. Quite an achievement, if there are really "no plans" to redevelop St Mary's, to have convinced everyone that that is what is inevitably going to happen!!!
On 7 Mar 2013 at 4:14pm wotacokup wrote:
Yes. I agree. That is why democracy does not generally endorse silly clandestine meetings between two people who think their Councillors cannot be trusted, and that they know better than them anyway. Clearly not the case here, as anyone with any sense would point out that this was a silly way of going about things.
Yes, it is reasonable to look at better facilities, which is why anyone with any sense would have explained this from the outset, and got a large proportion of 4000 petitioners on their side to just look at the possibility of a new improved social centre with some housing too. They might then find that the other 2000 went, yes we trust what you are doing, and would love the change. This is how grown ups discuss what we all do with our assets.
Of course, that might not be what was planned, and explain the covert behaviour.
At best Page's skills at being a representative of the electorate are low, and one can only presume that Ms Rowland's is similarly contemptuous of peoples right to expect open discussion and decision making. This is 2013 not 1913
On 7 Mar 2013 at 4:56pm Pedant wrote:
Indeed, Expat Twot, indeed.
My question is: "Is Expat Two actually Lewes Lady?"
On 7 Mar 2013 at 7:21pm Grim Reapers wrote:
All of you people and the 4000 seemed to have listened to a few self interested idiots who breached their duty of care to best serve their community, apparently they were informed but they didn't want the facts to get in the way or spewing cr*p. All of you are so sad and too lazy to see through the self interest and politics, sad sad destroyers of opportunity. Be the solution! But then of course you never will because you hide behind a forum, never stand up to be counted and just cast aspersions at people who you nothing about, you're worse than people who do nothing, sad sad wasters!
On 7 Mar 2013 at 7:34pm expat two wrote:
I'm not sure about this GR - exactly who's side are you on?
Who's opportunity is being destroyed - 'Jimmy' Page's?
On 7 Mar 2013 at 7:50pm Expat Twot wrote:
The people's, do try and keep up
On 7 Mar 2013 at 8:15pm expat two wrote:
Ooh, someone's had their feathers ruffled. How has 'the people's' opportunity been lost? Unless you're referring to their opportunity to allow councillors to mislead them for the benefit of a developer's profits?
btw, your latest pseudonym makes you out to be a....well, a twot. Some might say its your best yet.
On 7 Mar 2013 at 8:27pm Expat Twot wrote:
I think my lovely you miss the point on the name thing. Even if I was the most timid bird it would take more than you lovely blinkered provocateurs to ruffle my feathers. Peace be with you. Xxx
On 7 Mar 2013 at 8:48pm expat two wrote:
And peace be with you,... after you've explained how 'the people's' opportunity has been lost. Are you just changing the subject, hoping the question goes away?
On 7 Mar 2013 at 9:01pm Simples wrote:
It hasn't, but very self centred people are doing their very best to destroy people's fact based choice. Dear little sparky should know well the planning laws and as for IT Dave he should know better than to share documents.
On 7 Mar 2013 at 11:03pm Well I never. wrote:
It really is quite amazing. There are some very sane impartial comments on here, that don't even suggest that redeveloping a Social centre is a bad thing, but articulately explain why LDC are on the very wrong side of being right. It is hard not to agree with them. And then there are some truly baffling ones that I think are trying to endorse Cllr Page...but I am not sure they are doing him any favours.
I do notice that Cllr Donna Edmonds is missing. Presumably she is still being censored.
On 8 Mar 2013 at 1:11am Expat Two wrote:
'Lewesian Inbreeds' - what does that mean? Who is this Lewesian who inbreeds? Is that a Sussex Express headline?
Or did you mean 'Lewesian Inbreds', possibly a hysterical reference to the people who have, and can support with logic, an opinion? Not sure, but that's what we're up against with the illiterates.
'Inbreds' though, that'll teach 'em.
On 8 Mar 2013 at 11:11am Sparky wrote:
"Simples"....please explain to me why you think I should know the planning laws. Don't make inane comments at random without substantiating them.
On 8 Mar 2013 at 12:10pm Simples wrote:
Sparky, is it irritating to have random rubbish talked about you without substantiation? Well now you now my little forum dwelling troll.