Spring Barn Farm Development

Comments by Vic Ient made to the SDNPA dated 9th April 2015.

These comments can be seen of the SDNPA web site as well. 

Dear Planning,

Re: SDNP/12/02520/FUL Spring Barn 'Farm' Park

(Erection of 5 houses with garages and the erection of a 1 x large (1084 sq m) & 1 x smaller (126 sq m) ‘warehouse’ type buildings on farmland in the South Downs valley between Kingston & Lewes parishes. Plus the retention of an existing ‘agricultural’ barn at this southern end of the ill-defined ‘farm’ park site).

I have lived in the area close by to this development for over 30 years. For over 20 of those years I lived in Kingston. With my sons I have used the public footpath through this site frequently over the 30 years. I remember this valley when there was no farm shop or play area and indeed before the two large agricultural barns which were built out into the downland valley area. The valley has already changed with the introduction of new housing, the farm shop and the recreational development area. Any further change should enhance the area and not detract from it.

A decision on this 2 ½-year-old planning application should not proceed until proper consultation has been undertaken with the Lewes Town Council and Kingston Parish Council.

I am concerned that many residents thought that this application had been abandoned. In fact one lady told me that she gone into the local district Council offices at the time of the original application as she had seen something in the newspaper about it but was told that nothing was happening.

It would be a travesty of natural justice to push this application through now after over two years of silence by the authorities over this matter. A decision now would simply not be democratic.

Please defer consideration until there has been appropriate public consultation by the developer with the local community in Kingston village and the Kingston Road/Cranedown.

The application has been on the books for 2 ½ years so I don’t see why the applicant couldn’t wait another month or two before getting a decision

It seems that the consultations undertaken in 2012 did not include Kingston parish whose boundary with the site lies only a few meters away from where the new industrial building is to be erected. Also, many of the residents of Wellgreen Lane, Kingston have the whole site in direct view from their rear gardens. However, it seems that there’s been no attempt by SDNPA officers or the applicant to consult with them after the numerous ‘internal’ exchanges between various council & SDNPA officers and the applicant during the 2012 to 2015 period. 

All public consultation should be updated before this application is put before the SDNPA planning committee.

Further:

The principle of a children’s play area (though a little expensive for the average parent) a farm shop and cafe constructed a few years ago has been a great addition to the area.

However, many people don’t like the large 3 story residential building which detracts from the beautiful valley scene. However that past planning mistake is past history now.

This new application submitted 2 ½ years ago, which very few people seem to know about, is for the building of 3 detached houses, 2 two semi-detached houses and the construction of a very large building further out into the valley near the agricultural barn which itself was only built a few years ago. Key concerns about this development are:

  

1)    The development is adding more buildings in a small, beautiful valley in the South Downs. The large industrial style building set further out into the downland valley is out of keeping and destroys the rural nature of the area. The large, 1000 sq m, 7.65m high, industrial style building will be a prominent permanent eyesore in the once beautifful, peaceful and tranquil valley. I hope the members and officers appreciate its size and scale – it is approximately 2 ½ times the size of the existing large farm barn next to where it will be sited.

2)    The building of houses further extends residential development on the land between Lewes and Kingston. This could set a precedent for further development.

3)    The NPPF does not seem to be adhered to by the developer with respect to consulting and working with the community: “66. Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community”.

4)    The development contravenes para 115 of the NPPF, namely: Where it says “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, …………, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. ………….”

Regarding the officer recommendations my comments are:

a)    The report states that the farm park offices desirable attraction for local people and visitors to the National Park. That is not new information – this facility is already successfully established and doesn’t need new buildings or houses to supplement this facility.

b)    The report states The housing element is within an existing settlement boundary, – this is not true. There is no boundary here as set down by the planning authority and in fact the houses proposed be built are within the original farm yard and buildings area.

c)    The report states that the new farm Park building will not appear out of place. There is no justification for this statement and it appears to be just the opinion of the writer and not supported by the SDNPA design officer or the ESCC county architect.

d)    Item 10 of the conditions implies that there is going to be external lighting. Is the SDNPA about to agree to lighting in a valley which currently is a good candidate for the national parks dark skies programme. I’m not sure if the nearby residents in Wellgreen Lane and Ashcombe Lane Kingston will appreciate the lighting up of the valley at night.

e)    Bearing in mind the size of the new ‘Farm Park’ building it is obvious that many more visitors will be attracted to the site. Over the last two days I have counted over 100 cars being parked. This is well in excess of the applicant’s estimated 64. Extended car parking should not be pushed further up the valley or be allowed to operate at night after a certain time.

f)    I may be wrong but no mention seems to be made of the camping site which presumably the smaller new building will service (toilets and washrooms). Lighting associated with this and the use of such buildings should not destroy the tranquillity and quietness of the area at night. Local residents already have a concern of noise late into the night in the summer months.

g)    The SDNPA design officer’s says that the Farm Park building looks too industrial in nature. It is good some of the glazing area has been removed but fundamentally this building is too high and too large for the site.

h)    Both the SDNPA design officer and the ESCC County architect recommend the use of flint walls to maintain the character typical of the South downs. The site is already somewhat ugly with use of wire and post fencing and the further use of this along with other types of wood fencing is below the standard which development should be meeting bearing in mind national parks have the highest level of planning protection available in the whole of England.

  

Finally:

     I.        Very little regard has been given to the public footpath which crosses the site. This deserves more special attention to improve traffic separation from cars.

   II.        No mention is made in the documentation about the Cuckshut stream which runs through the site. As you will see by inspection it looks in a poor state. Please avoid any culverting of this stream and include conditions which would enhance the attractiveness and appearance of one of the very few downland valley streams we have in the area. Also special attention should be given to keeping this stream clear of debris to enhance the habitat for wildlife.

  III.        Please take account of the views of the South Downs Society and the Friends of Lewes and reject the over intensification of this downland valley.

Regards

Vic Ient

Save Cockshut Lane

For walkers, dog walkers & cyclists

Re: Cockshut Lane (the western end from the Stanley Turner ground to the corner near the bridge under the A27) 

Blind turning  left under A27

Since 2005 there has been a planning application condition which prohibited the use of Cockshut Lane (the western end from the Stanley Turner ground to the corner near the bridge under the A27) by vehicles associated with the business units at Rise Farm. This is part of the multi-user path to the west of Lewes. As you may know there was considerable effort put in by many people to designate this track as a ‘bridleway’ which has been supported by the ESCC and LDC and the South Downs National Park. 

Blind corner by water works

Sadly the gate at the Stanley Turner end of the track has been damaged and removed. This has led to an increase of cars and vans using the track speeding around two blind corners which is a very real danger to walkers, dog walkers & cyclists. 








The owner of Rise Farm, has now put in an application (SDNP/15/00575/CND) to have the vehicular restriction lifted. The application can be viewed and comments posted at: http://planningpublicaccess.southdowns.gov.uk/online-applications/

Then enter the above reference number. 

The closing date for comments (on-line by e-mail or by post) is 4th March 2015 

If you would object to the use of the track as a road please register your objection on line of by writing in.

More information on the situation:

Click on map to see detail.

This map show existing options for the Rise Farm businesses. Adding a 3rd (red dotted line) would provide an unrestricted (no speed limit) 'rat run into Lewes day and night! 

map Ordnance Survey copyright   

Click on picture to see detail.

The Highways Agency & ESCC own the track! 

The gates at each end have been removed &/or damaged. 









ESCC & the Highways Agency own the track! Please read this copy of my email to Rupert Clubb, Director of Communities, Economy and Transport at ESCC on 25 Feb 2015:

Dear Sir,

Your department has submitted a note in relation to the above-mentioned application saying they wish to make no comments. Please would you review your Council’s position on this application? Please take into consideration the following:

1)   I find this very surprising for a number of reasons, none the least of these being the fact that the county council are in the process of becoming the owner of the trackway concerned in this application. I understand that the Highways Agency and the East Sussex County Council are in the last stages of arranging the transfer of land ownership.

2)   I’m also surprised to find that your department wishes to make no comment since the county council are also in the last stages of confirming the route of this trackway as being a bridleway.

3)   Allowing the free movement of vehicles along this trackway will present a danger to walkers and cyclists which include mothers with prams, disabled with mobility scooters and children on their way to school at the Priory School.

4)   I trust that your officers are aware also that this trackway forms part of the proposed Egrets Way which has the support of the South Downs National Park and I believe your own authority.

5)   The businesses at Rise Farm already have 2 options in terms of entry and exit to their site:

i)     For large vehicles – via Ham Lane into Mountfield Road, which is already used by heavy vehicles travelling to and from the household waste recycling centre and the sewerage works.

ii)   For small vehicles – via Cockshut Road and under the railway bridge to Southover High Street.

6)   Opening up the general use of this track way to the west will encourage other users to use this as a cut-through to various parts of Lewes thus increasing the danger to pedestrians and cyclists, day-time and night-time. NB there is no lighting on this track.

7)   Please note that the original planning permission for this trackway  was to allow agricultural vehicles only to gain access to land on the southern side of the A27 bypass. I have no objection to this specific condition and I don’t think any of the local residents in the area do either.

8)   The original control of access was by 2 gates – one at the west and one at the east end. I believe these gates were installed by East Sussex County Council. Sadly they have now being damaged or removed.

9)   Please do not confuse Cockshut Lane with Cockshut Road.

10)       Please note that this trackway has only been ‘opened up’ in the last few years since the time the gates were removed or damaged. Prior to this and since about 1979 this trackway has been exclusively used for pedestrians, cyclists and authorised agricultural vehicles.

11)       Please remember that this track is used by walkers & cyclists from Cranedown/Kingston Road and Kingston as well as  other villages in the eastern side to the Ouse valley.

I hope you would agree with the points raised in this email but if you do not I would be happy to arrange a site meeting with your officers and representatives of local organisations and groups so that we may discuss the matter in detail.

Comments on Network Rail Sussex area route study

Network Rail, South East route: Sussex area route study - draft for consultation

If you would like to comment on the Network Rail 30 year 'strategy' document please go to: 
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/south-east-route-sussex-area-route-study/

Please send your comment to:
To Network Rail:   SussexRouteStudy@networkrail.co.uk

Unfortunately responses have to be in by 13th Jan 2015! They say it had been publicised since the 15th Oct but Network Rail seemed not have let anyone know about it! Thanks to Railfutures its existence was tracked down! 

Here is Sussex Diary's comments the study:

Date: 09/01/2015

The report titled itself as the Sussex Area Route Study, but much of the 200 odd pages are devoted to areas outside Sussex. Is this just a re-badged report about the London rail system cobbled together to give the impression of public consultation in Sussex?

The report is signed off by two senior directors - Paul Plummer, Group Strategy Director and Dave Ward, Route Managing Director (South East Route) saying that the document sets out the strategic vision for the future of this vital part of the rail network over the next 30 years but it offers no significant proposed improvements on the East Coast way or West Coast way lines throughout Sussex nor does it offer significant options to the high-risk strategy of a single Brighton mainline route. If this is the best that Network Rail can offer for the next 30 years then we are in serious trouble in Sussex.

The 200 page report seems to have the ‘ring’  of an internal industry report inward looking on its own systems and taking no account of actual and potential external changes which may have an impact on the rail system. For example, and I may have missed a reference, but the report does not refer to what the effect would be if a second runway at Gatwick is developed (whether one agrees with the second runway or not consideration should be given to the possibility).

There is no reference to consulting organisations like South Downs National Park or local authorities who would be able to give input regarding the possible demographic and population changes over the plan period. Surely, population growth areas will have an impact on the demand for rail services. Likewise, the report does not refer to proposed trunk road developments which been announced recently by the government. Again these developments would have an impact on how people use public transport and they should be taken into account. The Office for National Statistics shows a growth of 8.4 million people in the UK over 20 years to 2035.  Demographic changes are predicted showing the percentage of older people will rise over the 20 year period to nearly 9% of the total population. I can't see these older people commuting to London but the report takes no account of this change or the overall population change in the south east.

Improving travel across Sussex:

Travelling across or around Sussex isn't quick or easy. Roads are congested, bus services are slow and finish early, and rail routes do not all link up. Network Rail could make significant improvements to the working and leisure lives of residents as well as helping achieve greater sustainability and lowering CO2 emissions.

Change the current ‘high risk’ strategy of a signal north/south BML route:

The Network Rail report should be looking at improving travel across Sussex not just up one strategically vulnerable link to London via Haywards Heath & Gatwick. Anything happening on this north/south route creates havoc across the whole south coast system. This ‘all eggs in one basket’ is full of risks and should be mitigated with the improvement to other routes.

Change the focus to look at ‘local travel’ requirements in Sussex:

Although the survey covers the south coast area, sadly the Network Rail consultation focuses on capacity to London, ignoring the need to promote local economic growth by providing faster services between south coast towns like Chichester, Worthing, Brighton, Lewes, Eastbourne and Hastings, and access from places like Uckfield and Tunbridge Wells and the Weald to the South Coast for jobs and education and tourist travel.

Network Rail need to urgently address the above and certainly not wait until 2043!

Network Rail should urgently look at improvements in Sussex and not just to and from London:

·         Wealden residents can only get work or education in Lewes or Brighton by congested roads and slow bus services

·         Uckfield Line commuter services take 20 minutes longer than equivalent journeys on the Brighton Main Line

·         Newhaven needs regeneration but has only two through trains to London

·         Trains from Eastbourne, Lewes, Worthing, Hove and Brighton to London are overcrowded

·         The major employment and tourist centre of Brighton is dependent on a single over utilised rail link from London

·         Journey times between Hastings, Brighton and Worthing are too long

Action is needed to address the above in the next 10 years not the next 30!

The Uckfield to Lewes Link:

The Department for Transport has published the Network Rail report on the Brighton Main Line, capacity challenges and options for improvements. The DfT agree with the recommendation that Lewes-Uckfield re-instatement could make a longer term contribution to capacity on the Sussex route.

This short link should be re-instated in the next 10 years and not just left as an idea  floating in discussion papers in 2043! Such a development will have many benefits, including:

• direct train services between Kent, Surrey, the Weald, Lewes, and Brighton for education and jobs
• faster more reliable services between the Weald and London
• direct trains between London and Newhaven, supporting regeneration
• additional trains from Brighton, Eastbourne and Lewes to London, relieving the Brighton Main Line
• visitors will still be able to reach Brighton when the BML is closed, maintaining the visitor economy
• reduced traffic congestion around Lewes and Brighton.

Change the focus to promote growth in Sussex and not just encourage more people to travel to London:

Brighton is the largest employment centre in the South East outside London, the Weald has a very high daily outflow of people for work, and Hastings has a high level of unemployment. I agree with the Railfutures’  recommendations to promote economic growth in East Sussex, namely:

• Uckfield-Lewes reopening to achieve affordable and effective journey times between the Weald, the Sussex Coast and Brighton
• Faster travel and extra capacity between the Sussex Coast and Gatwick, Croydon and London
• Electrification and other infrastructure which expands services and connections, reducing journey times - by through trains not changes
• Electrification of Marshlink and provision of Javelin services via Ashford to achieve acceptable London-Hastings journey times
• Investment in a direct Coastway connection between Polegate and Pevensey to reduce journey times to attractive levels along the main coastal corridor, between Brighton, the Sussex Coast and East Kent
• Coastway Metro service linking Eastbourne and Hastings, with more stations.

Reopening the Uckfield link should not have to wait until a new cross-London link is built, after 2043. Other rail developments show new lines being delivered in phases. I agree with Railfutures’  proposals of an incremental approach to improving services on the Uckfield line and extending services to the South Coast.

1. Improve access. Improving access to stations, for example by building the new Uckfield station car park, will attract more passengers to use the route in preference to using the car or driving to other stations, relieving the Brighton Main Line and increasing the profile of the line with the rail industry, politicians and the public. The Wealden District Council gave planning approval for the new car park at Uckfield station on 3rd July 2014. The car park is expected to open late this year or early next.

2. Electrify. Electrification will enable longer trains to run on the Uckfield line without having to lengthen platforms at the smaller stations, will shorten journey times and will improve reliability. Local MPs, county councils and LEPs support the Railfutures’  response to the ORR draft determination that electrification would be better value for money.

3. Lewes ‘Horseshoe’. Recent events at Dawlish in Devon have shown the need for alternative routes to provide network resilience. I agree with Railfutures in that a simple loop at Lewes, following the A27 Lewes bypass will provide an alternative route between Brighton and Haywards Heath without reversing. It would also avoid reversing of the Lewes - Brighton shuttle service at Lewes, which might improve stock utilisation, and would facilitate services via a reopened Uckfield – Lewes line to Brighton. As Railfutures say, the radius of curvature is similar to that of the new curve on the East London Line Extension at Shoreditch, which operates without disturbing local residents. I understand from Railfutures that their proposals do not affect the Railway Land Local Nature Reserve at Lewes.


4. Other benefits:

·         33% more peak East Coastway - London capacity without redoubling the Uckfield line

·         a direct hourly service between Kent, Surrey, the Weald, Lewes, and Brighton for education and jobs, using the Lewes Horseshoe

·         an off-peak diversionary route (along with the Arun chord) to enable uninterrupted access for visitors to Brighton when BML closed, protecting the Brighton economy. This would also make it much easier for Network Rail to plan and implement the maintenance work which is so necessary to keep the Brighton Main Line running.

·         reduced road traffic congestion around Lewes and Brighton.

This simple proposal would not require any additional ‘trains’ through East Croydon. It would be achieved by extending the existing hourly Uckfield line service to and from Brighton, and extending the current peak service in the intermediate half-hours to and from Seaford.

5. Redouble. I also agree with Railfutures in that clearing East Croydon and Clapham Junction bottlenecks and renewal of BML signalling scheduled by Network Rail for 2023 will allow 6 more BML trains per hour, 4 to Victoria and 2 to London Bridge. These London Bridge trains should run via a redoubled Uckfield line between London and the South Coast.  The redoubling of the Uckfield line (at the same time as re-signalling in Control Period 7) would enable a more frequent service which would encourage more passengers to use the Uckfield line in preference to other routes. It would also give:

·         33% more peak capacity for both East and West Coastway to London

·         direct trains between London and Newhaven (avoiding splitting/joining Newhaven services at Lewes), supporting regeneration

·         a direct twice hourly service between Kent, Surrey, the Weald, Lewes, and Brighton for education and jobs, using the Lewes Horseshoe

·         a greater level of network resilience which would have enabled a service to be maintained when Balcombe Tunnel was flooded.

Neighbourhood Plans

Under the Localism Act (2011) a new form of planning control & development was introduced - Neighbourhood Plans. This empowers local communities giving them a major role in the planning system and allowing them to shaping the development in their areas. 

This guide is designed to get a village, town or area group started in understanding what a neighbourhood plan is. It is focused on the South Downs National Park area. For more information follow the links at the end of this blog. 

This is where the neighbourhood plan fits into the planning system: 

For the town or neighbourhood:

It may only be for the town, parish or area

but it can have a major impact on 

protecting, developing 

and improving the area.

To quote a government planning inspector: 'neighbourhood plans are about land use.' What is the make up of a neighbourhood plan? Quite simply in the end the plan will be made up of these main sections:

What aspects of our local community and area can a neighbourhood plan have an effect on? Here are some examples:

Some general principles for Neighbourhood Plans:

While a Neighbourhood Plan is flexible to some extent in terms of what can be included, you cannot put whatever you like in it:

A Neighbourhood Plan can…

• Decide where and what type of development should happen in the neighbourhood.
• Promote more development than is set out in the Local Plan.
• Include policies, for example regarding design standards, that take precedence over existing policies in the Local Plan for the neighbourhood – provided the Neighbourhood Plan policies do not conflict with the strategic policies in the Local Plan.

A Neighbourhood Plan cannot…

• Conflict with the strategic policies in the Local Plan prepared by the local planning authority.
• Be used to prevent development that is included in the Local Plan.
• Be prepared by a body other than a parish or town council or a neighbourhood forum.
• What can a Neighbourhood Plan contain?

So long as your Neighbourhood Plan complies with the above principles, it can be as narrow or as broad as you wish. But it must be primarily about the use and development of land and buildings. It can also have a say in how buildings should look (their ‘design’), or the materials they are constructed from.

Typical things that a Neighbourhood Plan might include:

• The development of housing, including affordable housing and bringing vacant or derelict housing back into use.
• Provision for businesses to set up or expand their premises.
• Transport and access (including issues around roads, cycling, walking and access for disabled people).
• The development of schools, places of worship, health facilities, leisure and entertainment facilities, community and youth centres and village halls.
• The restriction of certain types of development and change of use, for example to avoid too much of one type of use.
• The design of buildings.
• Protection and creation of open space, nature reserves, allotments, sports pitches, play areas, parks and gardens, and the planting of trees.
• Protection of important buildings and historic assets such as archaeological remains.
• Promotion of renewable energy projects, such as solar energy and wind turbines.

What are the steps in making up the plan. Here is an extract from the CPRE guide:

Useful links (NB: the link may go out of date but the organisation can still be found by searching the web): 

CPRE - Short document and guide

http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/housing-and-planning/planning/item/2689-how-to-shape-where-you-live-a-guide-to-neighbourhood-planning

file:///C:/Users/Vic/Downloads/How_to_shape_where_you_live.pdf

page 11/12

UK Gov: 

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/what-is-neighbourhood-planning/what-is-a-neighbourhood-plan-and-what-is-its-relationship-to-a-local-plan/

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/

Guidance:

Locality (national network of community-led organisations):

http://locality.org.uk/resources/neighbourhood-planning-roadmap-guide/

The Royal Town Planning Institute
http://www.rtpi.org.uk/planning-aid/neighbourhood-planning/

South Downs National Park Authority, SDNPA 

https://www.southdowns.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/neighbourhood-planning/

Forum (anyone can join)

http://southdownsforum.ning.com/group/neighbourhood-planning

Grants:

http://mycommunity.org.uk/programme/neighbourhood-planning/

Monday 18th Aug: old Magistrates' Court - Public Meeting by Lewes Rep Theatre

A public meeting will be held on Monday, 18th of August at 7.30 pm at the White Hart Hotel, Lewes where the proposed change of use by the Lewes Repertory Theatre Community Interest Company (LRT) to the disused Magistrates Court in Friars Walk will be discussed. LRT's Phoenix Theatre was destroyed by fire in March of this year.

The application, (SDNP/14/03805/FUL) can be seen and comments registered on the SDNPA web site (http://www.southdowns.gov.uk/planning ).

Sean O'Kane, director of LRT explained in the Sussex Express last Friday:

The change of use is classed as “D2” by planners and this means the building would not be demolished but used for “Assembly and Leisure”. LRT’s vision is to rehabilitate the present building into a centre for classes, training, rehearsal, performance and production for the local community and with the potential to host a wide range of events both from within and outside Lewes, from concerts to talks to children’s theatre.

The building offers possibilities for a variety of uses that respond to pressing community needs and LRT would develop the site as a community hub with its strategic location in the heart of Lewes. LRT has been approached by a number of established community groups who have said they would relocate to the building if the application is successful. All have said the former magistrates court building would be an improvement on their current premises.

The Old Magistrates Court could accommodate studios, exhibitions, and host events by voluntary organizations throughout East Sussex.  The site has excellent disabled access and could have crèche facilities. LRT is currently engaged in fundraising in order to realize this vision within the community. Should LRT’s application succeed the next step will be to approach the owners of the building, the Estates Dept. of the Ministry of Justice.

‘The Old Magistrates Court is solidly built, in excellent condition and centrally located,” said Sean O’Kane. “It could easily become a valuable resource centre for our community, and it would be a ridiculous waste of money, and tantamount to vandalism, to demolish it.”

Apart from eighteen unique theatre productions over the last ten years, LRT has facilitated a wide range of activities, from ballet school to a rehearsal and stage development venue for the performing arts (including New Sussex Opera), to meetings of local societies, to the construction of effigies for Lewes Bonfire.

A27 - Motorway Style Road Planned for Sussex

Here is an update on what is know about the current situation:

Proposed major trunk road 'improvements' have come out of what is happening at a national level with the Government’s 2013 spending review and its focus on increasing the amount of funding for road building.  There has already been a meeting in Brighton in January 2014 and a presentation on the A27 FEASIBILITY STUDY given by the DfT and the Highways Agency. Very broadly, the Study is to build on previous analysis including the Arundel By-pass studies, Worthing transport studies and previous Lewes to Polegate studies.

Amongst other things, my concern is that the study is a road transport study only and is not multimodal. I believe that any solutions should be devised within a context of a more co-ordinated approach to transport with an appropriate emphasis on measures with low environmental impact.

It is important to remember that business groups, especially in the Eastbourne area, and the MP for Eastbourne are very keen on duelling the A27 from Polegate to Beddingham. They are influencing the policy as set down by our local LEP:

Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs)

http://www.coast2capital.org.uk/

Key LEP proposals include: Promote national investment in major arterial routes including the M25, the M23/A23, the A27, and the Brighton mainline, North Downs and Coastway railways.

It appears that there are Local Transport Bodies (LTBs) as well - see the following:

LTBs: – report by the Campaign for Better Transport

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/roads-nowhere/local-transport

The most critical thing for the public is to catch up with the current feasibility study and make comments on it. See:

Feasibility study for the A27 – due to be completed this summer

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/305033/a27-feasibility-study-scope.pdf

Conference - Speakers - Planning Battle for Lewes

Speakers:

Sean O'Kane, BA Hons - Founder and Director of Lewes Repertory Theatre Community Interest Company.  Educated at University of Exeter & Paris University where he was awarded 'Maitre des Beaux Arts'

Councillor John Lamb,  - Lewes Town Councillor and Publisher and Editor Ability magazine which is a campaigning publication for people who have difficulty using IT. He was educated at the University of London. 

Vic Ient, MSc - Founder of Save Lewes Architecture and life member of the South Downs Society. He is a member of the CPRE & the National Trust. His main career was in IT & Telecoms. Before moving to Lewes he was a County & District Councillor in Kent. He is now retired from business.