We now have an RSS News Feed. If you install the Google Destop (requires Windows Vista/XP/2000 SP3+ or Mac) and a news reader gadget such as OneFeed, you can have the very latest Lewes Matters news in real-time on your desktop!
And the following feed is for the latest forum posts...
Re:Phoenix Action - 2006/04/19 19:49I have read all the comments in response to my rather heavy handed open letter to John Stockdale. I am willing to accept that John really cares about the town and that open criticism of our plans is a good thing. We do not want to force our proposals on an unwilling audience and would rather craft our scheme taking public opinion into account. For that reason we would like to see the results of the Lewes Matters survey as soon as possible. We are still in the design stage of this development and we are getting feedback from all parties we are not trying to bully anyone into liking our proposals but at the same time I find it distressing when we are trying to be so open and to seek public opinion that John insists on putting out inaccurate information. I would ask him to look carefully at the words he puts out and to make sure that they reflect the reality. The last thing I want is to have to get involved in legal actions with John and we would only do this as a last resort if sanity did not prevail. I would welcome a meeting with the groups that do not like our proposals to try to fully understand what they think we should do to make the scheme come into line with their vision of how lewes should develop. We have met with Friends of Lewes and The Chamber of Commerce recently and I am quite willing to meet my critics head on. I do not think this is all about money and I fully endorse the request for sensitive and appropriate development. I am happy to listen to all views and have a chance to explain my viewpoint in an attempt to get a consensus view. I honestly think it is very likely that the outcome can be to satisfy the concerns of most if not all people. This letter should not be seen as a cynical attempt to placate my foes,but as an open invitation to cary on with the discouse about our scheme without fear of reprisals or legal actions.
| | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum.
s.oliver
Re:Phoenix Action - 2006/04/19 20:36Mr Style, your use of the term 'rather heavy handed' is as accurate as the terms you are using to describe aspects of your proposed development. I have seen the poster you referred to, and there is nothing in it that warrants your inappropriate threat. I thank you therefore for having drawn attention to it's apparant accuracy. I look forward to displaying a copy.
| | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum.
charles style
Re:Phoenix Action - 2006/04/19 21:09Thank you for your reply Mr Oliver, in case I did not make it clear, I found every word in the flyer inaccurate. Misleading and ill informed and I believe designed to mislead, if you choose to be mislead that is your prerogative but please do not try to suggest that I am saying the content of John,s flyer is accurate or in any way convincing.Any genuine and accurate criticism will be very well received and replied to.
| | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum.
s.oliver
Re:Phoenix Action - 2006/04/19 21:33Mr Style,
You state that you find every word in the Phoenix Concern poster to be innacurate. My understanding is that some of the wording is opinion based on a substantiated belief. Other aspects of the poster, which are of particular interest to me, and which I wish to publicise, seem to be based on your own information about the scheme. Perhaps you would explain the inaccuracy you object to in the following quotes.
1)The homes will be built in high rise blocks...
2)...at an average density of 270 per hectare. That's more than 5 times the Lewes average and as close packed a inner London.
3) 8 storey buildings wil dwarf the 3 storey buildings in the historic town.
If these details are inaccurate, I am sure you would agree that correcting them now would benefit everyone.
| | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum.
Dominic Buckwell
Re:Phoenix Action - 2006/04/19 21:42I have read the lively debate today, but have not seen Mr Stockdale's leaflet.
Having declared publically on this website that he would sue if untrue facts in the leaflet prejudice his proposals, Mr Style's more recent posting is more pacifying in tone. The conclusion invites the discourse to continue "without fear of reprisals or legal actions". However the same message earlier states that he would only take legal action against Mr Stockdale "as a last resort if sanity did not prevail" so the threat is still live.
In the light of this posting, I would invite Mr Style to clarify his position in respect of his public threat to sue Mr Stockdale.
Mr Style, will you or will you not waive any potential legal claim for damages and/or an injunction in connection with the leaflet? or would you say yes conditional upon him or his acolytes taking no further steps to publish or circulate the leaflet?
A positive answer would not prevent you taking action if future wrongs are committed, but it would draw a line under todays activities, and I for one would think the better of you for it, giving me more confidence in the beneficial aspects of the scheme which you expouse. If the comments in this thread are representative, many people have today been offended by the threat to gag a local activist by legal means, even if it is true his method of campaign is disingenuous. This is the worst kind of heavy money-backed tactic which people most resent from a prospective developer. If I were your PR consultant I would be groaning in my coffee latte, and if I were your lawyer I would be advising you that the propsects of proving actionable prejudice or loss caused by the leaflet is higly unlikely, so you would really not be giving anything up by withdrawing the threat.
For the record, my feelings are in favour of mixed residential and commercial development in the phoenix quarter, but I would like to see it keeping with the benchmark 25% affordable housing, but keeping to the lower end of permitted denisty and without rising above 3 storeys.
| | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum.
Holly
Re:Phoenix Action - 2006/04/19 22:34Like Dominic, I would welcome Mr Style's retraction, ask that he continues to welcome challenge and opposition as is healthy, and am glad at his statement:
‘I do not think this is all about money and I fully endorse the request for sensitive and appropriate development.’
Mr Style is a business man and a developer and it is clear that the development must have financial merit and make a sizeable profit for it to be worthwhile to his company. Development, it seems to me, is often about making as much money from as small a space as is possible, so should Mr Style have more radical and non-monetary view of the development we should welcome this.
If his perspective is genuine, then it is to be a case of balancing the business needs (profit) of the developer with local need (our views about what Lewes really needs) and this is where the focus of our debate should lie. I suggest that Mr Style must have a view as to the level of profit that makes this development viable to him and perhaps this should be a starting point (i.e. enabling debate on what can be chopped and what could be added).
Personally, I dread the thought of Lewes becoming an immaculately developed twee-town with no areas that are a bit shabby – it would be unreal. I also dread the thought of a shopping centre full of high street chains – it would undermine the quirkiness of the town and local traders. I like the fact that the area isn’t pristine or over crowded and has basic premises for industry.
However, as it is incredibly likely that the land will be developed, and it is therefore key that the shape and scope of the development is sensitive and appropriate, should Phoenix Action not be fighting for what we want to see first, and fight against the development of the area if this vision cannot be achieved later?
Equally, should Mr Style be prepared to forego extreme profit (as he suggests) and maybe develop the site in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the town – and in a way that reflects the character of the town (a historically radical, ‘green’, creative, quirky, architecturally varied town full of artisans, craft peoples and small businesses set up by self starters) then in the longer term he could be using this development as part of a portfolio for his business as a ‘developer of the future’ (esp given the huge sustainability agenda)thus forgoing immediate profit for longer-term viability and profits.
Not to labour the point – should sensitivity and appropriateness to the town take pride of place over money and profit, then a development of such a large part of Lewes should be radical and quirky (but with elements of day to day normality to prevent tweedom)– and should meet the needs of those who already live here first – rather than catering for a new population. It could be amazingly environmentally advanced and forward thinking, - solar, wind, rainwater harvesting, encouraging live-work rather than commuting…. it could create solutions to problems (such as the lack of affordable workshop space for local crafts people or workspace for the self-employed or local small businesses), it could and should provide low cost housing for those who have generations of family in the town but can no longer afford to stay, it could and should provide retail and industrial premises for genuinely useful businesses (car services included!!), it could provide practical spaces – such as decent sized open spaces Italian style piazzas, for outside events – such as concerts etc etc and it shouldn’t put pressure on local schools, doctors and dentists, parking etc etc , it shouldn’t create work spaces for external businesses that could end up employing 800 staff from outside of Lewes, it shouldn’t turn the town into a place for mindless shoppers and eater-outers, but should build on the heritage of the town as a place of doers, it shouldn’t build 8 storey buildings or create high density living spaces for the sake of high level financial returns but should be aesthetically sensitive, it shouldn’t undermine the existing infrastructure – arts centres, shops….
I just wonder how radical and sensitively appropriate Mr Style is willing to be, as such a development would certainly get people excited and motivated and would face a great deal less opposition. However, it wouldn’t make huge profit margins..
| | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum.
Dear site visitor at IP address 38.103.63.61. We were forced to make it necessary for you to register and login before making forum postings because of the constant flood of unwanted and often abusive material that was being uploaded by anonymous spammers from all over the world. I'm sure you know the sort of stuff - viagra ads and the like - what a bore! But you can of course read the postings without logging in, and in any case it only takes a couple of minutes to register - you're not losing your privacy, but you're keeping out the spammers. So do please register and continue using the forum - we need your input! Thanks, Lewes Matters Admin.
