On 19 Jan 2013 at 4:44pm bastian wrote:
I went, I read the corporate b*ll*cks and I talked to a gentleman from Santon..who seemed reasonable and a councillor who made my blood boil.
To start with, all the information boards were smattered with a legal pen..someone had read the Santon draught and changed words of definition like "will" to "could" and "possibly" so that they were neither confirming or denighing anything. So a sentance would read"A new health centre could (not will) benefit the community." and that a river walk could possibly (but not definately) be for the public use. We may need to work on our own council rather than the developers. We need to make them see this as an oppotunity to build something amazing that the town is proud of, that can be upheld as a model for a National Park, not an eyesore that people have to regret because other National Parks then get the same rough treatment because we are the ones that let in the developers unchecked.
Please go to the next Santon workshop and have your say because if you don't, you have no right to complain about what you get or how the image of this town appears.
On 19 Jan 2013 at 6:04pm SHS wrote:
Well said Bastian and thanks for the reminder, I'll make sure to go.
On 19 Jan 2013 at 6:49pm shopkeeper wrote:
Well said Bastian . Hopefully something gets started soon , we just need to make sure it's good quality . Lets get rid of the squalor and make it something nice for lewes people .
On 19 Jan 2013 at 7:06pm Townie wrote:
And what, shopkeeper, if the Lewes people want a McDonalds, a bowling complex, youth clubs etc etc
On 19 Jan 2013 at 10:53pm shopkeeper wrote:
Then let them have what they want , has it been mentioned that there won't be such things ? , in fact Lewes needs some normal businesses ie Mcdonalds ( it's 2013 after all ! ) . it is a massive site and i'm sure with decent planning there is room for everything that is required . There could be some artists studios as well as retail units and recreation facilities . There probably won't be any room for the many people who live on the estate currently at no rent , but i am sure that as with any new developement there would be the required percentage of affordable housing . The site needs to be developed and the sooner the better . Change can be good !
On 20 Jan 2013 at 1:19am Fairmeadow wrote:
If the development goes ahead, there will be some public benefit - flood protection for one thing (make sure it protects the Pells houses too) and I hope very much a new accessible riverside walk.
Everything else, including the desperately needed affordable housing, competes for the same pot of developer-money. Developers are usually keener on artists' studios and retail facilities (which will attract the DFLs who can afford their more expensive offerings) than on affordable housing (which they fear will put off said DFLs). So if you value the affordable housing, be a bit careful what else you vote for.
On 20 Jan 2013 at 9:28am Ducatipete wrote:
This is such a large proposal that LDC won't be able to handle it as they do not have the expertise or finance available. The developer will throw a fortune at this as they have so much to gain. This is much the same as Tesco getting consents that would otherwise be turned down.
On 20 Jan 2013 at 10:31am Sussex Jim wrote:
Shopkeeper- Lewes already has many normal buisnesses as well as shops selling expensive tat. There are a number of places to buy a hamburger, so we do not need a Muckdonald's. Let's keep up the standards of quality in the town.
On 20 Jan 2013 at 11:38am Local wrote:
Retail is an interesting part of the equation. I can't see huge demand for similar size retail units as those that currently exist in the town, unless they are much cheaper - which I can't see happening. There might well be use for a couple of larger units (which could in theory be used as art spaces until taken up / after being vacated. The consultation questionnaire seems to me to include the possibly which I've long mooted - a John Lewis / John Lewis Home as the anchor, including a Waitrose food hall. I would build this as a single storey job on legs, to allow (floodable) parking below and a green civic space on the roof (podium style). But John Lewis would expect a rent-free deal, so lots of other nice to have stuff would be lost, I suspect.
Interestingly, if 350 homes created a population increase of say 750 people, that is only equal to an extra half-GP being required (based on the national average GP to population ratio). So unless all existing GPs in the town are willing to move to a new health centre, you can probably forget about that 'carrot'.
On 20 Jan 2013 at 2:04pm Townie wrote:
And that, Sussex Jim, just about sums up what ive been saying for the past few weeks. This development is going to be about the arty-farty vocal few who will get their art studios, photographic suites and pottery studios because......THEY KEEP UP THE STANDARDS OF THE TOWN and fcuk what every other "normal" resident wants.
On 20 Jan 2013 at 3:36pm brixtonbelle wrote:
Well Townie - you have to go along and make your point of view heard. If you want to live in anywhere's ville with chain stores then ask for that. It's open to all and Im sure Santon will welcome your views. Have you been along yet ?
On 20 Jan 2013 at 3:58pm bastian wrote:
BB is right you cannot complain on here but not put your views forward for the developers. Artists are not the vocal point at the meetings, it has largely been people concerned at the idea that the project does not contain enough affordable housing for ordinairy people, any of whom are stuck living with parents or paying a rent that is private and too high so they cannot move up or on. There are too amny peopel in their 30s stuck , putting off having children becuase they can't afford to move into suitable accomodation. that is the main concern of the vocal few...I think that is alturistic considering many of the vocal few are older and finacially stable, they can see there children and grandchildren struggling. Personally I am glad we have Aldi, it at least sells affordable food, building a John Lewis is of no use to me and many others, niether is a cinema or a bowling alley because I can't afford to use it more than a couple of times a year.
On 20 Jan 2013 at 5:28pm bastian wrote:
shop keeper, I would like to add a point you are unaware of, and that is that businesses on the estate DO pay rent to Santon and all pay the going business rate, don't spread the idea that it's full of free loaders, it isn't. They have also requested that the travellers pay rent under a contract and they considered it, but the legal requirement was so outrageous and contravened actual exhisting laws of removal that they decided not to sign it. FYI, a business rate on one of your so called scruffy arty farty warehouses is about £16,000 pa on top of rent and bills. You are looking at 25K to run the place. That money is going into the public purse.
On 21 Jan 2013 at 1:34am Fairmeadow wrote:
Businesses pay business rates but charities & community groups do not.
On 21 Jan 2013 at 9:30am Sussex Jim wrote:
Years ago, if you had a business and paid business rates you also had a business vote in addition to your own.
On 21 Jan 2013 at 9:57am biggles wrote:
Slightly wrong, Fairmeadow. Charities get a 50% mandatory reduction, the other 50% is discretionery and in these straitened times it might better suite LDC not to give the discretionary bit.
On 21 Jan 2013 at 12:29pm Clifford wrote:
Sussex Jim wrote: 'Years ago, if you had a business and paid business rates you also had a business vote in addition to your own.'
And Oxford or Cambridge had extra 'university' seats as well. Would you like that little bit of undemocracy brought back as well?
On 21 Jan 2013 at 2:16pm bastian wrote:
clifford we normally agree but this is going to lead us off track. There are so many inequalities in the modern neo liberal world that I wouldn't know where to start.
The point is, we have to get as many people as we can to actually leave their computer key boards and go and have their say, otherwise you can forget democracey at all (not that Britain is a democracey any more, so where there is a little use it.)