DEVELOPERS have submitted plans for a major development of 416 new homes, flood defences, public areas and workspace.

Santon North Street and Lewes District Council jointly filed the planning application to the South Downs National Park Authority to regenerate the North Street and Phoenix Industrial Estate area of Lewes.

The North Street Quarter proposals include 165 affordable homes, making up 40% of the total. It aims to bolster town flood defences, create riverside public spaces and walkways and build 140,000 sq ft of flexible workspace.

The final plans were submitted following three years of public consultation.

Rob Blackman, leader of Lewes District Council, said: “We want to create a vibrant, mixed-use neighbourhood which is designed to reflect and complement the character and industrial heritage of Lewes while delivering benefits to people on this rather hidden and isolated brownfield site.”

The Santon Group, which jointly owns the land with the council, said the development was sympathetic to its setting next to the River Ouse.

Construction is expected to create 100 full-time jobs and £150 million of investment into Lewes and the South Downs National Park.

Lewes councillor and chairman of Lewes Community Land Trust John Stockdale welcomed the submission.

He told The Argus: “A £150million investment, more than 400 homes – 40% of them affordable, completing the town’s flood defences, a riverside walk and a foot and cycle bridge to Malling will make a substantial contribution to the life of the town.” He also welcomed the provision of units for businesses on the site.

But Chelsea Renton of Lewes Phoenix Rising, a group of small independent businesses residing in old buildings set to be demolished, was not as happy with the plans.

She said: “A few of the bigger businesses can afford to move to the new industrial estate, but the network of smaller independents, workshops and unique cultural, community and youth venues are likely to disappear for good.”

She also said the alternative workshop space was “likely to be too expensive” and that the affordable housing was “simply not affordable”.