It may come as no surprise that the over-riding view of respondents is that re-development would be welcomed, but that it should be much lower in density than proposed, with no high-rise buildings, that the town’s present infrastructure will not be able to cope and that the opportunity to create sustainable, affordable housing must not be missed.

These are typical comments from our research survey:

AGAINST:

• “The proposed density is three times that of the most dense part of Lewes. This is not "average urban density". This is a density more suited to a major conurbation not a small market town.”
• “I still have a feeling that the development is too high, in spite of the reduction in height of towers. I am concerned that Lewes is getting modern-day "tower blocks" or a ghetto area.”
• “It is difficult for a non-specialist to assess what would be a reasonable number of houses.  More relevant - will these houses match the needs of local residents and their families - which are for affordable houses with gardens for children?”
• “I'm not aware of what is behind the proposed target of 800 homes. It seems that an additional 10% of population is a large proportion to incorporate into the town in one hit. Where is the demand coming from and who are they? I'm a supporter of brownfield development, but maybe it should be approached in smaller phases. Slower, organic growth always seems to be more easily absorbed.”
• “Such a large percentage increase would require an investment in the supporting infrastructure (schools, dentists, doctors etc) as well as a overhaul of the road network. As anyone who travels through the town at rush hour knows, it often reaches gridlock without hundreds of more cars!”
• “Space should be allowed for workshops/small manufacturing units so that it remains a lively, mixed area.  I would hate it turning into a sterile environment such as Sovereign Harbour.”
• “I understand the need for new housing and the need to develop sufficient numbers to make the redevelopment economically viable. However I am very concerned that the current proposal of 800 homes will generate too much traffic and put too greater strain on existing utilities, especially water.”
• “The densest hectare in Lewes is around 70 households (Sun st etc). The next densest is around 50 and so on down. Government guidelines suggest new town centre developments should be over 50 where possible (and where there is usually more than one road in & out). This proposal is nearly 200! This is a proposal from people who only do large city centres.”
• “I think this area should be turned into a nature-rich park. This would have the advantage of helping to alleviate flooding by absorbing run-off and storing water. It would also contribute to moderating higher temperatures predicted in future.”
• “Has to be economically viable to the developer, but I think that he will settle for less - around 500-600 max.”
• “The extreme density, the ugliness and unsuitability of tower blocks (euphemistically called "landmarks" by the developer) and the extra thousand or so cars--completely inappropriate.”
• “The whole development is on too big a scale”
• “Given the current (and historical) use of the area, combined with the flood risk, I feel it is important to keep residential numbers to low levels (double figures).  However, Lewes has experienced a significant increase in density in recent years and the planned overdevelopment of other areas (e.g. Lewes House Site and Baxters Printworks etc) need to be taken into consideration when considering the Phoenix redevelopment.  I believe that no further creation of residential units should be considered until the infrastructure is improved and capable of sustaining the Town.  For example - Water.  Other essential services include education, health, highways and public transport.”
• “There is no need or precedent for this type of high-density development in Lewes. Just because Prescott likes it, there’s no reason to ruin our towns for his sake.”
• “An influx of this many (800 x 2/3?) people will significantly alter the balance of the current community & place significant extra demands on infrastructure & services. It is too many.”
• “Sensitive architecture using traditional materials and traditional Lewes style, not concrete and glass. No chain stores. Maximise renewable energy. No cars. Proper assessment of impact on water table, sewage, traffic.”

FOR:

• “As many as can properly be provided for in terms of services & amenities etc.”
• “Not perhaps many fewer but enough to allow for mixed use”
• “A 10% increase in population over the next 5-10 years seems a reasonable maximum. Better on brown field than green, & we will need more housing somewhere. It depends on plans elsewhere in Lewes.”
• “high density is good as encourages public transport etc”
• “If that’s what they think they can put on there with everything else they propose that’s fine by me.”
• “I'm afraid that the government requirements for additional housing in the South-East will necessitate this level of increase - at least this is in a town, and high density is appropriate for this site.”