Planning

Charles Stile Esq.
Angel Properties

6 October 2005

PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, LEWES

We have now been able to consider your draft outline proposals and offer the following comments on them. We start from the premise that the existing buildings in the area are not worth retaining and thus we welcome the principle of re-developing it. We also consider that any new development there should complement rather than compete with the existing town centre and its design specification should be such that it can be considered for inclusion in the existing conservation area. We also hope that, through for example street naming, some link with the area’s industrial past can be provided.

We considered your proposals under the following headings: -

1. Relocation of existing industrial/commercial units to Malling – We have no objection to this concept as the land at Malling has been allocated for this purpose for some time. However we would be concerned if the overall level of employment provision in the town, including the artisan provision on the Phoenix site, were to drop. We also have some concern that there will be no space at Malling for firms to expand whilst we would want to be satisfied that there was adequate landscaping between the new units and existing housing at Malling.
2. Infrastructure – We would like to be reassured that in your discussions with the various service providers, including water supply, sewerage, education, health and social services, you have received confirmation that they can cope with the additional load which the development will place upon them and, that where additional facilities are necessary, these will be provided at the same time as the development. In particular we should like to know whether a health centre will be provided to incorporate the existing dental practice, how surface water drainage will be dealt with, whether there will be any overhead wires and whether the proposals will make use of grey water, solar heating or include a Central Heating Plant.
3. Density of development – Bearing in mind that Lewes town centre already has dense residential development we have no objection to the overall number of units propose provided that there is a reasonable proportion of affordable housing units. As far as their design is concerned we consider that there should be an overall master plan for the whole site, including the former Seeboard offices and Corporation Villas. Other points are that the implementation schedule should be published whilst an insurance bond should be taken out to cover against the event that your firm is unable to complete the scheme.
4. Height of buildings – We have some concern over the total number of high buildings and consider that the design of them is crucial though we agree that 2 flats per floor is the right scale. As far as the remainder of the development is concerned we consider that 4 stories above the raised “ground” level should be the maximum; this would be consistent with existing buildings in Lewes. Retaining views through the site of the castle and the church of St John-sub-Castro is important.
5. Proposed non-housing uses - We welcome the proposed innovation centre and live/work units although we should like to know how many of the latter are proposed. We also welcome the various community facilities and suggest that a museum to include for example part of the Reeves photographic collection and a Tom Paine section would be an asset to the town. In selecting occupiers of the retail units we consider that one major store, that is not primarily a food store, would be welcome. Whilst we await your proposals for the design of all the non-housing units we consider that it should be consistent with conservation area principles and, in particular, that the illumination to be provided at night should be consistent with the existing rules applying there.
6. Flood prevention measures – We welcome the flood prevention measures although we trust that their finish will use locally distinctive materials and not be all concrete. We should like more information as to what is proposed from Willeys Bridge to the foot of St John’s Hill. We welcome the proposed riverside walk and slipway and trust that a bridge will be provided over the latter for pedestrians. We also suggest that barge moorings might be provided in the river and provision made for land-based fishing.
7. Road and footway pattern – Whilst we agree with a roundabout being provided on Phoenix Causeway and a road being provided from there to access the site, we wish to give further consideration to the concept that eastbound traffic should be diverted from Little East Street through the site. We consider that pedestrian and cycling routes should be separated from traffic by using bridges or underpasses and that there should be a direct pedestrian route of this nature to the existing town centre. We suggest that the southern end of Brook Street could be closed up and a link made between the northern end and Spring Gardens. The proposed bridge to the Malling playing fields is welcome and the height of this should be no less than the height of Cliffe Bridge.
8. Car parking – We welcome additional car parking being proposed close to Phoenix Causeway and that this will be so designed that it is hidden from view. We consider that a larger coach park than the existing one should be provided and would like to know what provision will be made for service vehicles on the site particularly those serving the commercial units.
9. Landscaping – We welcome the appointment of a landscape expert to the development team at this early stage. Whilst we understand the reason for a raised “ground” level we trust that not all the bushes and trees to be provided will be confined to planters and where possible existing trees will be retained. More generally we question to what extent saline pollution from the river or industrial pollution from the former ironworks will affect the landscaping to be provided.

We trust that you will understand that these comments are made without prejudice to the formal comments we may put forward to the District Council when an outline planning application is submitted. We would, however, welcome being kept informed of any changes you propose to the scheme, including its precise boundaries, and, where appropriate, given an opportunity to comment on them. We suggest that either a model or a computer simulation would be very helpful to enable the public to fully appreciate the scheme when planning permission is sought.

Robert Cheesman

Chairman