On 2 Jun 2009 at 1:00pm LTR wrote:
Steve has promised to contact Lindsay Frost and ask why the Baxters fire engine turning circle has three parking spaces in it, contradicting safety requirements. Looking good Steve for an extra vote....... thank you. looking forward to the reply from Mr Frost. i hope he doesn't get too cross!
Of course we would all like to know why Lindsay Frost told everyone at a recent meeting that Fire Access to that site isn't a planning issue. Because that statment is wrong. (as ANY other planninmg specialist, or check with a lawyer not working for LDC) Cllr Peter Gardiner didn't correct him, so is it Lib Dem cover up, or just his misguided belief that Mr Frost is never wrong. You might like to ask him.
The problem won't go away because it is a dispute that has to be declared by the sellers of the flats. if I was them i would sue the Council for approving this mess.
On 2 Jun 2009 at 1:24pm Mr wibbly wrote:
Steve 'come lately' Watts did not say anything about the Malling Brooks application. I've had the same leaflet from him now 3 times and he says 'Yes' to everything. Is there anything he won't say 'Yes' to?
On 2 Jun 2009 at 1:38pm THEINTREPIDFOX wrote:
Well done LTR.. Just one question: Do you refer to the three resident parking spaces in front of Caburn Court on St Nicholas Lane? In this case I would like to point out the Planning Departments incompetence by approving 54 dwellings, 19 private parking spaces (sold for around 30K each), and one additional on-street parking space to the two existing ones for use by all subscribers of Zone D and their visitors. Two out of the 19 private parking spaces are marked as disabled bays but only the bay owner is allowed to use them. One disabled bay has been sold to a non badge holder and the other one is part of the show home. A Clifford Damn representative refuses to allow disabled residents to use this bay. I have raised this issue with our incompetent brainless planning department but they apparently cannot enforce the use of disable bays. In the meanwhile blue badge holders are happily (and forced to) parking on the double yellows painted opposite the turning circle. They are entitled to do so but not if they cause an obstruction as in this case according to the law. NCP is doing pants about enforcing it. The questions you have to ask Lindsay is whether it ever occured to him that there will be only one additional public space to share amongst 35 dwellings and all other Zone subscribers and whether this is realistic in terms of the parking zone capacity? Since the disabled bays are just 'for show', does this mean the council is now forced to create public disabled parking bays at the tax payers expense whilst the others are sold off by the developer for around £60K? Do we know where these will be created? It stinks of incompetence. At least Lindsay has sorted out our rubbish collection after I pointed it out to him at the last Planning Matters meeting. Before you talk more to Steve, perhaps you can email me on [email protected] to coordinate our efforts to get things sorted. Yours sincerely, a Printworks resident.
On 2 Jun 2009 at 2:02pm LTR wrote:
TIR I agree with you,. The parking issue is a seperate but connected one, and i am trying to keep it seperate ...for now. LDC have created a mess, because not only is the fire access rubbish, and was improperly ignored, but the parking issue was also ignored. Councillors deferred specifically for parking concers, but at the next meeting didn't even discuss them. You can see now why!
To sort out the fire circle, you need to remove the parking, which would then have breached highways parking requirements. It is catch 222 that we can all see now is perhaps why Lindsay frost was so keen to stop our Councillors discussing it.
Hopefully Steve might drag this kicking and screaming into the political spotlight for the scandal it is, as the Lib dems have no interest in dong so.
Regarding Malling Brooks, Another attempt by Planners to mislead councillors, steve might want to give RAID a call, now that he has been alerted to the fact that out planners are not all they seem.
On 2 Jun 2009 at 2:07pm LTR wrote:
Incidentally TIF I(not TIR!), How do you feel about discovering that Baxters Fire Access doesn't meet legal requirements, was wrongly considered, based on Mr Frost's wrong advice, and that the fire appliance needed to deal with such a large building can't get in the top or bottom of the lane (only a small one can!) I am sorry you have been so let down by LDC, and would be interested to know what the seller put on your search regarding the question of disputes, and the requirements of the east Sussex Act and Fire safety provision..
It's a shocker!
On 2 Jun 2009 at 8:54pm Fireman Sam wrote:
All a bit academic really - IF the Baxters development was on fire the "access circle" is far too close to permit the use of a ladder - a unit would need to stand further away to both be at a safe operating distance AND extend to the top of the development - which is again where academic comes into it because a unit high enough to reach the top floor couldnot enter the Lane due to the narrow entrances (further retricted by bollards at BOTH ends of the lane there is inadequate turning for a hydraulic platform to enter at either end - a pump escape unit could possibly gain access - but only reach to two stories
On 2 Jun 2009 at 9:23pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
All the parking issues were raised at the time the application was going through. We were told that the lack of parking provision didn't matter because the people buying the flats wouldn't have cars (it wasn't quite as blunt as that, it was shrouded in woolly planner-speak, but that was what it amounted to).
The fire safety issue has really hacked me off, I wish we'd known that at the time. If I could be arsed, I'd go to Southover House and ask to look at the fire brigade response to consultation, because this either wasn't mentioned at the time or was conveniently overlooked.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 2:04am LTR wrote:
Don't waste your time. there was no consultation over fire access as a planning issue. that is the point. Instead the planning department, and their lawyer wrongly pursuaded our councillors that it wasn't a planning issue, when a letter was found in a building control file ( a different process but same department) telling them that there were access problems. Planning knew this was a problem, and failed to address it properly, as required. Why?, is something they need to explain.
If this scandal wasn't bad enough. Lindsay Fost is still misleading us all, (reference: town meeting arranged by Lewes Coalition) that fire access isn't a planning issue. It is, and even the ESCC Fire department know that it is which is why they may have liked to have been properly consulted.!
On 3 Jun 2009 at 8:04am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Isn't the fire service a statutory consultee on planning matters? They certainly should be. By the time it gets to building control, the basics have been agreed and if it's unsatisfactory in terms of access for fire and rescue, it's too late to do anything about it.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 8:15am Sarah wrote:
I have read Steve's bio and he seems to have lived in Lewes for more than 20 years, so hardly 'come lately'! Indeed I know his son, who is a Lewsian, and 22...as for the Malling Brooks decision, read SW's letter to the Express, I think he had his point proved in print. Hopefully we can hear more about the Lindsay Frost issue soon.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 10:03am No Pot Pourri wrote:
Fire safety is covered under building regs part B. They tend to be pretty flexible, so a number of different solutions could meet the requirements. Building regs are normally considered after planning is granted, as a separate application. The development requires building regs in just the same way as it requires planning permission. Maybe check the building regs file to see how the provisions for part B were satisfied, but I don't think this issue will result in you seeing Lindsay Frost's head on a stick any time soon.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 11:56am LTR wrote:
NPP is correct here is how it works.
Fire access to, but outwith the site, is a planning issue
Fire safety issues within the site are Building regs issues.
On the baxters Application the Planning issue was the tricky access to St Nicholas lane at both ends. In fact it was known that it was not possible to access from the bottom, and was very difficult at the top, with large vehicles unable to gain entry. The Planning Deaprtment failed to consult the fire service about the access issue, because LDC stated that it was not a planning issue, and would be dealt with a t building control stages with sprinklers etc.
they were wrong, as everyone now knows excxept perhaps Mr Frost and anyone silly enough not to verify what he, and his department says. Even the Council legal rep. present at the meeting failed to correct the mistake.
Building control did deal with fire issues on the site, but despite promises to the Planning Commiteee, there are apparently no sprinklers, and we can all see the problem with the blocked turning circle.
Hands up who would like to live in this block of plywood flats on bonfire night?
On 3 Jun 2009 at 12:17pm Ed Can Do wrote:
It's ok, on Bonfire Night the street will inevitably be designated a safety escape route and closed off by police so people living there won't be able to get anywhere near their own houses anyway. A flat in the Printworks is looking like £300 grand well spent so far, huh?
On 3 Jun 2009 at 1:02pm LTR wrote:
A bargain. The other great thing is that rather than having smooth flat rendering that meets the conditions of the permission, there is a fascinating badly applied bumpy rendering which is blistered and dangerously cracking off. Just take a look at the Walwers Lane side. Why hasn't LDC enforcement ensured that this is corrected? It doesn't even look safe to me. What is stopping bits falling off? This was heralded as a quality building, in the heart of Lewes by planners promoting this disastrous white elephant.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 1:23pm Rozzer wrote:
Given the disaster this has been, just imagine what a mess LDC would have made in the Phoenix application had ever gone in - 700 shoddy flats on a flood plain with no proper oversight from the planners. As has been said before, Lindsay Frost's Cornwall retirement home beckons.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 2:02pm Geoff wrote:
If I had mislead a commitee in my job with completely incorrect advise about a statutory fire safety consultee I would be facing disciplinary action.
If I continue to mislead over two years later, despite being told what the correct position was, I would be looking at something even more serious.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 10:02pm Angry of Lewes (Retd) wrote:
As for the Walwers lane side - notice how the gutter downpipes empty straight onto a pavement - and its a hill - water flows straight across and down the footpath - and will freeze - the pipes are also square section so that water dripping down them "pings" on the bottom angled section-evidence of this can be seen where the ground floor residents have tried stuffing tennis balls and scouring pads up them to reduce the percussive effect
planning? schplanning!!!
On 3 Jun 2009 at 10:21pm Aunt Fanny wrote:
I have just heard from someone in the know from my neck of the woods that a 99 pence shop is taking over most of the Woolworth stores in the south of England and up North In Gosport in Hampshire they opened the second one the first being Petersfield I just wondered how Lewes felt about this ? the shops they have opened are very well stocked and everything is the same price . 
On 3 Jun 2009 at 10:34pm Poppycock wrote:
The rumour is Wilkinson's are taking over the old Woolies building
On 3 Jun 2009 at 10:51pm Aunt Fanny wrote:
poppycock you did'nt answer my Question how would you feel about a 99 pence store
On 3 Jun 2009 at 11:37pm Angry Of Lewes (Retd) wrote:
Poppycock and Aunt fanny what is the relevance of your postings to THIS THREAD? you people make my blood boil
On 3 Jun 2009 at 11:59pm Aunt Fanny wrote:
Well a reaction at last does it matter where I come from, are you someone very important I ask a question is that wrong or do you wish the site to be only for your little comunity
On 4 Jun 2009 at 12:05am dresdan china wrote:
is the weather bad down there if it going to freeze blimey dont think I will move to lovely Lews after all
On 4 Jun 2009 at 1:11am Geoff wrote:
Aunt Fanny and poppycock seem to have confused the subjects of baxters Pritworks and, Steve watts promise to ask LDC an embarassing question, with....Woolworths. I can only suggest these two numpties apply for jobs in LDC planning, as they are likely to get them.
On 4 Jun 2009 at 12:59pm Aunt Fanny wrote:
I wish Steve Watts all the best this numptie is retired I will watch with interest .
On 4 Jun 2009 at 7:00pm Geoff wrote:
Its OK you're forgiven, just go to the new thread box at the top of the page, click on it, and you can talk about Woolworths to your hearts content. Steve Watts may even want to add his own views on the subject. have fun.....!
On 4 Jun 2009 at 9:07pm Angry of Lewes (Retd) wrote:
Thanks Geoff - glad it wasn't just me - Aunt Fanny (and Poppycock) you are welcome to comment to any thread -or start a new one of you wish - just helps if you comment with relevance when using an existing thread
On 4 Jun 2009 at 11:03pm Aunt Fanny wrote:
Thanks Geoff realized after that I pressed wrong keys .once I started there was know stopping me I will know for next time .
On 7 Jun 2009 at 8:38am demon 2 wrote:
we r all fxxxxd the conservatives have won let the bad times get worser than ever before