Petition calls for Lewes Bus Station to be re-opened

No Caption ABCDE
No Caption ABCDE

A PETITION signed by more than 2,800 residents was handed to East Sussex County Council last week calling for Lewes bus station to be re-opened until an alternative was provided.

Following complaints, a campaign began combat the lack of facilities at the bus station and now Independent Lewes Town Cllr Stephen Catlin (Lewes Priory) is celebrating improvements being ‘three steps closer’.

As well as the petition, Lewes Town Council has agreed to support maintaining public access and a meeting is being held about providing seating.

Cllr Ruth O’Keefe (Independent, Lewes Priory) and Cllr Catlin presented the petition to council chair Chris Dowling.

Cllr Catlin said an online version of the petition provided ‘telling comments concerning the councils’ policy of encouraging travel by public transport being ill served by the present bus station, and others suggesting that it is a complete disgrace for the county town in a National Park to have such a decaying and mainly closed building with which to welcome visitors’.

Lewes Town Council unanimously agreed to approve Cllr Catlin’s proposal: “This Council expresses support for any initiative of the site owner’s statutory authorities and others to maintain public access to sheltered waiting facilities on the site of the present bus station in Lewes pending eventual redevelopment.”

It is hoped the council’s Traffic Working Party will convene a meeting between the owners and the town, district and county councils, which have an interest in the town.

Cllr Catlin also received a letter from head of county highways Rupert Clubb on Friday agreeing to a meeting about providing seating, but holding back from the provision of toilet facilities.

Said Cllr Catlin: “I am pleased about the seating, but think more could be done about the toilet facilities being re-opened.

“The District Council pays a contractor to look after the other public toilet facilities in the town and I believe the cost of including one more facility would not be prohibitively expensive.”