. .

THIS WEEK Summer makeover: Surface dressing programme to ‘pothole-proof’ county roads

COMMUNITY UPDATE: Pevensey Mini History Festival

JOBSBOARD LATEST ON JOBSBOARD: Sussex Police: Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs)


image credit: Elevations AMENDED – Proposed Street 8/03/2019




The question of the Beach Tavern site will one day be resolved.

This is the third effort by the owner to plant in Pevensey Bay something so alien that the local landscape would be changed forever if the scheme were to go ahead.

In the first application, the owner presented an architect design statement which was a confection. The architect had no even concerned himself to find the date of build of the Beach Tavern, arguing the date was unknown. A researcher found the date (1905).

He said the intention was to pick up the colour of beach huts in Pevensey Bay. There are no beach huts in Pevensey Bay.

The proposal was a grotesque example of overdevelopment with no sense of place, no relationship with the locality.

The three storey monstrosity was described by one long term resident as a white elephant.

With the second application the owner, with a new architect, made some adjustments with the look of the building, but we still saw three storeys with the application.

Essentially what persisted was a dismal pretence in terms of ‘listening to the community’. The grotesque scale of what was planned was the same. Hiding the building behind what appeared to be a giant palm tree at the front did not hide the fact that the elephant was still in the room.

The third iteration we are told would be different. The third iteration is not different.

The drawings we were told would show revisions to parking, scale of building and addition of transport report we were told. The plan for underground car parking seems to have been buried, widely ridiculed in terms of a failure to provide detail at the time.

The drawings show that two bedroom flats have been replaced in some cases with one bedroom flats, the scale is the same, three storeys.

At some point this development proposal will go beyond the busking stage with a plan that will acceptable.

Is difference what we see with this third plan? In the view of the Journal this is most certainly not the case.

Sheila Holden, the inspector who wrote the report dismissing the appeal on behalf of the Inspectorate, with the first application said that the main question was the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

In her conclusion she said, the Framework also advises that planning decisions should ensure that developments establish a strong sense of place, which will function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the long term.

The second application was no more connected to the community than the first application. A huge palm tree had been stuck in place at the front in the public sketch provided.

In the third proposal, the essential difference is not in scale, but in the shrinking of the size of the flats proposed. The three storey scale of the proposed project remains.

The distractive palm tree at the front of the building has now been replaced by a small herd of baby elephant palm trees. The gestation period of an elephant is about 22 months, about the same time that this wildly incongruous proposal has taken to reach the third drawing board.

The Journal says that this third iteration of a building has no sense of place and that the application should be dismissed.

Martin Beeney, whose family live just 8.6 metres away from the proposed development appeared to sense the view of the community.

On 8 May 2017 he said, “it will be the beginning of the end for the village if this building goes ahead”.

Objections to this third proposal have to be with Wealden Council by May 9.

There would appear to be just three days to go before the beginning of the end of the village hoves into view.

With or without a herd of baby elephant palm trees at the front of the building on show, the circus would appear to be planning to come to town.

The Journal is opposed to this third development proposal because there is no evidence at all that the developer has listened to the community.

Most certainly, this proposal would be a blot on the landscape and should not go ahead.

Most certainly what has persisted is a dismal pretence in terms of ‘listening to the community’.

What has been manifestly clear to many people in the community, since the beginning with regard to this application, is that the proposal would add nothing and take away so much.

Without a strong sense of place that adds to the overall quality of the area, the Beach Tavern proposal for a three storey development continues to be of immense concern to the community