. .

THIS WEEK East Sussex: 100 businesses benefit from EU grants scheme

COMMUNITY Care and Support scheme reaches milestone

BUSINESS Media Release: Art Gallery for the Bay


Application: WD/2018/1320/F

Adjoining/neighbour letter, objection: Now in the public domain, Bay Life believes that this objection, by an adjoining neighbour, has the weight and authority to challenge the second application to develop the Beach Tavern site in the most fundamental way.—Bay Life, 3 August 2018

Comment on WD/2018/1320/F Beach Tavern, Pevensey Bay
The revised design following a similar application in 2017 is materially the same scheme for 8 flats on a 571m2 site, a construction density of 140 dwellings per hectare (60 per acre). This is an over- development of the site. The 3- storey building has been shrunk from the previous application by about 0.5 m in height. Second floor windows still look down from above into the surrounding low rise properties. The bulk of the building is much the same with some softening of the building outline in some places and more development in other areas. The bulk of the building will cast a shadow over the surrounding propertied especially in winter when the sun is low.

The proprietor of this development was present at the 2017 planning meeting last year that unfavourably commented on the plans before them and has not heeded the overdevelopment and bulk concerns expressed by the planning committee.

I note this application is for full planning consent and there is no sectional detail show how the building is supported by the underground car-park. I believe the hydrological report is flawed in that the site consists a thick layer of running beach overlain by gardening soils. Such an assumption would change the dynamics of the hydrology and construction task. I would have thought an onsite borehole or 4 – 5m deep shaft would have brought a more professional approach to the engineering aspects this planned construction. Details on how to found and build the basement both from the design of bearing and flotation risk are absent. One point to highlight is the need to have a 0.6m high stop log dam ready to deploy in the event of a 200 year flood, attention is drawn to this in the flood report. This condition may occur during construction.

To construct this building it would be necessary to occupy part of Marine Road to safely dig out the basement wall on the site boundary this would be a major local inconvenience. The running and maintenance of the underground parking would require a periodic pumping facility and the air would need changing in the event of gasses building up as there is no through ventilation.

The car parking ratio of 10 spaces per 8 flats & 14 bedrooms is not sufficient to cope with this up- market development. There is no lift and coupled with the tight underground parking spaces it cannot be considered as disabled friendly and may not have proper provision / ratio. Parking demand in the area is acute. The underground park is very tight and will not be useful for visiting tradesmen’s vans. There is no parking provision for such service vans. This is another example of over development of the site.

The scheme is little more than a sketch in outline and is not sufficiently designed and detailed to enable planning consent to be given and should be turned down for the same reasons as previous application. Overdevelopment.