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...
"Social" - 2006/08/30 02:36It seems that the only social concern in this development is the issue of affordable housing (a relative concept) and the possiblity of a creche near the Pells playground which the developer has now conceded won't be a free garden for his development and will remain an amenity for the residents of Lewes. Wouldn't it be more progressive to develop something that doesn't require all adults in a household to be earning to afford to live there so that there is no need for a creche.
What about the issue of consultation of the residents which isn't limited to some residents associations (not elected) or individual interest groups. The friends of Lewes has been relatively mute (maybe, only maybe because the architect's late father was a well established and influential member) Why is the cinema going to be "like the Duke of Yorks" or "screen on the green" and not something more mainstream. Why are there going to be "live work spaces for artists" replacing a light industrial estate? and why, when family homes are so expensive in Lewes, are there going to be tower blocks (albeit ones which are apparently readily confused with bell towers in a medieval italian town) of one and two bedroom appartments? Surely there are more social issues to be explored with a development of this size than the percentage of affordable housing which the developer can fail to provide if he runs into financial difficulty etc.
| | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum.
John Stockdale
Re:"Social" - 2006/08/30 12:25Thanks, MSW, the debate needs to get started again.
Angel Property are asking for permission to put a three screen cinema on land they don't own and to build the creche on land belonging to the Town Brooks Trust that would probably breach the terms of the trust deed if the trustee (Lewes Town Council) agreed to it. Having planning permission doesn't oblige you to build something - unless it's part of a planning gain agreement. And even then there's plenty of wriggle room for renegotiation. Both it seems to me are clearly window dressing and it is naive to think either will be built.
Affordable housing, if built, is real enough: it is owned and managed by a housing association and nominations to it are by the housing department. But will it actually be built? Like MSW, I can already imagine the developer pleading poverty to avoid the obligation.
| | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum.
Marjory Phillips
Re:"Social" - 2006/08/30 22:10Social Housing WILL be built - the agreement is that 25% of all housing developments within Lewes town will be "affordable". If less than 25% were to be suggested, the planning department would have grounds to turn down the application.
The developers are unlikely to plead poverty as they will receive a generous grant of money from the Housing Corporation (funded by the tax payers) to provide social housing units.
| | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum.
John Stockdale
Re:"Social" - 2006/08/31 12:25Marjory, you are right in general. The Lewes District Council requirement for affordable housing is 25% for any significant development (over 15 houses, I think) and it will rise to 40% in 2008 in line with Brighton. BUT the requirement is waived or negotiable if the site is 'difficult' - as the Phoenix undoubtedly is. Last year 76 houses were built in the District and only a paltry 2 were 'affordable'.
Even with the Housing Corporation grant, affordable housing isn't an attractive proposition for a developer. The site across the river on Malling Brooks where Patcham got planning permission for 125 units was approved without any affordable housing for this reason. Their agent offered the site for sale listing 'no requirement for affordable housing' as the only benefit.
Charles Style has said he won't avail himself of this get out and he will get as near to 25% as he can with his proposal. But that may not stop him using this reason to argue to be excused this burden later.
| | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum.
marco crivello
Re:"Social" - 2006/08/31 13:07Marjory,you are of course right that a 25% affordable housing target exists within the local plan- interestingly the new framework that will come into force in the next couple of years looks to set a 40% target that will bring Lewes in line with many other councils.The 25% is however not set in stone, and there is plenty of small print about delivery, that gives, as John Stockdale has said, 'wiggle' room for the developer.Charles Style has spoken of the similarities of the Phoenix Quarter proposals with the development currently under way in Dorchester,and there, there was a negotiating down of the affordable housing quota.Closer to home,the developers of the Southdowns Rd site did indeed plead poverty, on the grounds there were, as I recall contamination issues connected to the site.The district surveyor was called in, agreed with the developer, and the 25% target was dropped entirely.
Lewes Matters have had a number of meetings with Charles Style,and he has indicated that if he so wished, he would be in a position to do this with the Phoenix site, because of contamination issues, amongst other things. He says this is not his intention,and we will be studying closely the details of the application.The target for affordable housing is one thing, equally important is the way it is integrated into the scheme,for example the best practice of 'pepperpotting' the affordable housing around the site, to prevent a sense of social segregation,which appears from our meetings,not to have been taken up within this scheme.
I think it's worthwhile remembering that affordable housing, like environmental targets and so many other 'community gains' that people in the town would like/expect to see in the scheme, all reduce the developers profit margin,so no one should be surprised to see a developer negotiating for smaller contributions.
| | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum.
AJD
Re:"Social" - 2006/08/31 15:59Surely the main concern must be that Style aka Angel, will sell on the greater proportion of land scheduled for residential use and it will be the buyer - Wimpey, Berkeley, or the ante post favourite, Barrett, who will go to the Council pleading poverty. Whether it will be poverty of profit or poverty of ideas is a moot point. How do we give our Councillor Planners the backbone to ensure that they remain steadfast in the face of the almost certain legal barrage coming their way from such corporate giants? The threat of un-election next year may not be sufficient, I fear.
| | 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.
