kevo
Well-known member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 9,092
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
New Town planned for Sussex
- Thread starter kevo
- Start date
Justice
Dangerous Idiot
Another Crawley then
Brighton Breezy
New member
More potential news fans...
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,290
will never happen the nimby will kill it. but if short to medium term housing needs are to be met, this sort of proposal is absolutly necessary. the same nimby's will cry about how their children cant buy a house in the area, and why cant the council/government/everyone else not do something about it.
brightn'ove
cringe
north yorkshite is full of shit countryside already populated with power stations, why don't they just build it there 
D
Deleted member 18477
Guest
Oh piss off anywhere but the SE!
HastingsSeagull
Well-known member
Just develop brownfield sites. Give grants but make it private enterprise
Another ill thought plan, build an eco-town, move the station and create a no-car town ... yep, that'd work.
The Birdman
New member
This is not the first suggestion ,I believe they had suggested around Plumpton once and the other side of Lewes for a development, but I think these may have been smaller. If we build in the countryside it would be nice to build new hamlets and small villages in the traditional way rather than horrible brick.it would be nice to also provide a few low cost houses for local pepole to live in .
grummitts gloves
New member
The problem is no one actually knows what the actual required number of houses is for the South East. Labour introduced the South East Plan which outlined the housing needs before the financial crisis. The Tories scrapped the South East Plan earlier this year, but the government planning inspectors are still working to the old figures. Work that one out! Until Parish/Town/District councils come up with their own neighbourhood plans, developers will have a field day. There is a presumption of favour for the developers. Objections are only successful on the grounds of sustainability from within the national policy planning framework, which is very hard to evidence against. In a nutshell the wrong type of housing stock is being built in the wrong areas and are currently being built out of greed rather than need. The most recent developments are selling very slowly and doing nothing to kick start the econonmy.
Does anyone have a map showing the area that this proposal is meant to cover ? It's rather hard to tell from the Argus story !
Garry Nelson's Left Foot
Well-known member
If it's meant for over spill for Brighton, why not build an estate on some of that farmland between whitehawk, woodingdean and rottingdean? That way you can keep it within the confines of the city. Admittedly something would be needed to be worked out regarding the extra traffic.
I have no clue regarding town planning and the like, so if the above is a ridiculous suggestion, at least it didn't mention gus, poo or palace.
I have no clue regarding town planning and the like, so if the above is a ridiculous suggestion, at least it didn't mention gus, poo or palace.
34064 Fighter Command
New member
Crawley is not perhaps the best example to use, but there are plenty of towns in this list that DO work.......
Aycliffe
Barrow-in-Furness
Basildon
Bracknell
Chorley
Corby
Crawley
Harlow
Hatfield
Hemel Hempstead
Letchworth
Milton Keynes – "New City"
Northampton
Peterborough
Peterlee
Poundbury
Redditch
Runcorn
Skelmersdale
Stevenage
Telford
Warrington
Washington
Welwyn Garden City
There are plenty of 'historical' towns that were built in a planned way by developers as well, the most obvious one is Bath, but you can add Bourneville and yes, even parts of Brighton, especially the Regency Terraces.
The Large One
Who's Next?
The developers' website says 'between Henfield and Sayers Common'. In short, they propose a town six times the size of Henfield.
Monsieur Wabee
New member
Every week when I open the County Times to read a story about new housing & the need for further development across the South East, I think it's fair to say we're being shafted more than other regions. Yep this is an old Labour policy that the Tories had no intention of keeping and now we find ourselves in a complete mess.
They've identified the need for an extra 42 homes in the village I live in for people currently residing there. The place is fecking tiny so unless we're all going to be ordered to start popping babies out I've no idea what they're going on about. Madness!
They've identified the need for an extra 42 homes in the village I live in for people currently residing there. The place is fecking tiny so unless we're all going to be ordered to start popping babies out I've no idea what they're going on about. Madness!
The Large One
Who's Next?
If it's meant for over spill for Brighton, why not build an estate on some of that farmland between whitehawk, woodingdean and rottingdean? That way you can keep it within the confines of the city. Admittedly something would be needed to be worked out regarding the extra traffic.
I have no clue regarding town planning and the like, so if the above is a ridiculous suggestion, at least it didn't mention gus, poo or palace.
Zero chance of getting past the planning authority - the South Downs National Park Authority.