Dear Mr Baker

We very much value your contribution in the Lewes Handbook to this crucial debate about the "Phoenix Quarter" proposals and fully endorse your final sentiment that "One thing is certain we, all of us, must not get it wrong, or future generations will not forgive us."

It appears that Lewes residents are already likely to be put at a distinct disadvantage in any attempt to participate in this debate; our very recent discussions with Angel Property indicate that an application is likely to be submitted at the beginning of August, in the middle of the holiday season, when many of the town’s residents and, very probably, planning officers, will be on leave.

More alarming still, the case officer for this enormous proposal has indicated to us that he will at best only extend the consultation period to four weeks - one week more than the statutory 21 days. How are people are to familiarise themselves with such a large proposal at the planning offices - or online, as Angel have promised - and then make any kind of effective representation within four weeks during the holiday period?

One document alone - Angel Property's contamination report for the site, obtained under the freedom of information act and which is essential reading for anyone wishing to become sufficiently informed, runs to 42 pages.

It must be hoped that whatever statutory period exists, commonsense will prevail and the time allowed for public response will reflect the scale and public interest in this scheme. We sincerely hope you will use your undoubted influence to encourage this.

To return to your article in the Lewes Handbook we felt it helpful that you have identified many possible positives of this scheme. Our passion to do whatever may be necessary to preserve what is good about our town and to insist that caution and prudence are not overlooked in the excitement of any major development, compels us draw certain inferences:

We quote from your article:

"Firstly, the present industrial area is looking increasingly run-down, and unlikely to attract investment while there are no flood defences, and the government, despite its fine words, is not intending to provide any here. The Phoenix scheme does provide those defences, as part of a community gain, and without them, it is likely that this part of Lewes will simply die off, and businesses move away, as they have already started to do."

Yes, the estate does looks shabby in places, however post the 2000 floods, despite lack of any promise of flood protection, the estate soon returned to 80% occupancy. The lack of flood protection to a 1 in 200 year risk factor has meant that rents for the site have remained affordable and allowed small/medium scale businesses to thrive in a climate, where the combination of high rents and linked business rates would have forced many of these ventures out.

Whilst it is true that no external investment appears forthcoming, our contacts with Phoenix businesses, indicate clearly that they have all been willing to invest in the fabric of their businesses.  This strikes us as a healthy litmus test of an investment for the future.

And yes, one or two businesses have moved away, like Parsons Joinery – partially, it must be said, in response to the prospect of development of the site.

Anecdotal discussions with current businesses on the estate indicate that life has not been a bed of roses for Parsons since their move to a  Ringmer industrial estate. It is worth pointing out here that the proximity of the estate  to the town centre is a crucial factor in the viability of some of these businesses.

In this section you suggest that the flood defences offered  by the Phoenix proposals are part of a "community gain". The Environment Agency have confirmed, however, that  such defences are a planning condition, without which they would object to any new building on this floodplain (this is of course leaving aside new, tighter regulations, contained in the incoming government policy PPS 25), so we feel it ambiguous to refer to it as "planning gain."

A further quote:

"Secondly, a big development does allow the council to extract community benefits in a way that a series of small piecemeal developments would not. The promised cinema would clearly be very welcome"

Our understanding is that section 106 agreements ("community benefits") may be equally extracted from smaller developments. So far as we are aware, the HQ Art Gallery which forms part of three houses on the site of the old scout headquarters on St John St is a result of a section 106 agreement.

A final quote:

"Thirdly, there is a shortage of affordable housing, and a development this size allows the council to demand a reasonable percentage of the new housing be affordable for local people. And an increase in population should also help to underpin the vitality of our local shops and businesses."

Again, our understanding is that piecemeal developments are equally obligated to meet the current LDC targets. From LDC's Housing Strategy 2006-2009 we quote:

"We aim to increase provision (of affordable housing) significantly over the next 5 years to 2010.The Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance includes the target that 25% of all housing from new building and conversions should be affordable, according to the following thresholds:

Lewes  15 units or 0.5 hectares.

Mr Baker, it seems churlish to attempt any criticism of such a thoughtful, informed article, especially as Lewes Matters agree with so many conclusions. But, as you pointed out in your final sentence and, as we make no apology for repeating – “One thing is certain we, all of us, must not get it wrong, or future generations will not forgive us”.