IMAGE CREDIT: Jan Barron
Bay Life understands that the Planning Inspectorate has reached a decision to dismiss the appeal by Mr. R Foss, with regard to the proposed development of the Beach Tavern site.—Bay Life 22, January 2018
read full planning inspectorate report here
Report published by Planning Inspectorate on 22 January 2018 confirms decision to dismiss final appeal
A letter sent out to objectors today, 22 January 2018, signed by Kelvin Williams, Head of Planning and Environmental Services for Wealden Council, confirms the decision
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Appeal by: Mr R Foss Site: BEACH TAVERN, SEA ROAD, PEVENSEY BAY, BN24 6EH Proposal: 7 NO. 2 BEDROOM APARTMENTS, 1 NO. 1 BEDROOM APARTMENT AND ASSOCIATED ACCESS AND PARKING FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PUB.The Inspector appointed by The Planning Inspectorate has reached a decision on the above appeal and has decided to dismiss the appeal, the Council’s decision will therefore remain extant.
If you have access to the internet, the appeal decision notice will be available online within the next few days on the Council’s Planning website www.planning.wealden.gov.uk.
A copy of the Inspector’s decision notice can also be inspected at the Planning Department, Council Offices, Vicarage Lane, Hailsham. The office hours are 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday.
Kelvin Williams
Head of Planning and Environmental Services
The decision to dismiss the final appeal will no doubt be read with relief by the 500+ people that signed a petition against the proposed development and the 22 objectors to the scheme that wrote to Wealden Council, and broadly, the community of Pevensey Bay.
Not a single councillor voted in favour of the development, with one abstention at the Wealden Council Planning South meeting on 20 July 2017.
Local district councillor, Dianne Dear (who is also the publisher of Bay Life), but was not entitled to vote because she is a sitting councillor for the village, spoke for the community when she pointed out at the beginning of the planning meeting that the proposed development was ‘just too big’. She also gave the view that the applications was based on greed. The webcast of the meeting can be viewed here.
Today, 22 January 2018, Dianne Dear added the view that ‘perhaps Mr. Foss will now start talking to local people, which is perhaps what he should have done in the first place”..
People in the village fought long and hard with the campaign to see this application dismissed.
Fears for the future of the village have been expressed by people. Following the decision, there is an expression of relief by amongst residents talking about the application in local cafes.
Fears over the size and scale of the proposed development have been hanging over local people since the application was made.
John Davey, resident Pevensey Bay for 38 years said (2 May 2017) “my response is unprintable. I can not believe that they don’t get that we don’t want that great big monstrosity there. It is totally out of character for the area and for Pevensey Bay.
“They are just not listening to anybody. The bottom line is that it is all about money and greed, plus who would want to live in a 1950s East German prison type camp build anyway.
“We don’t want them touted as holiday flats because it would be empty for most of the year and it would not do the businesses here any good.
“I am angry in the way that they are just not listening to the concerns of people, as long as they are making money and lining their own pockets, that is their concern.
“They are not worried that people down here will have to put up with that great big white elephant.
“All that is missing for these plans is the barbed wire, the watchtowers, the searchlights, armed guards and dogs”.
Sheila Holden, the Inspector who wrote the report dismissing the appeal on behalf of the Inspectorate, explained that the main issues were;
a) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area;
b) whether or not the proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of a site in commercial use.
She began with the character of the building proposed. “The commercial centre of the village of Pevensey Bay lies on either side of Eastbourne Road where there is a variety of shops, restaurants, cafes and a hotel interspersed with some residential uses. The appeal site is somewhat separated from these other commercial activities by Sea Road. (Reasons for Decision point 4).
“Its overall width, depth, mass and bulk would dominate the site and appear out of scale with other nearby buildings. Its angular shape would also be incongruous and incompatible with the surrounding street scene. (Reasons for Decision point 7).
‘In my view when seen in the context of the surrounding development, the building would appear alien and out of place on this prominent and important site in the village”. (Reasons for Decision point 9).
In 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.
“I was not satisfied that the proposal would achieve these objectives, even though I concluded that the loss of the Beach Tavern would be acceptable. This leads me to conclude that the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. It would therefore not be a sustainable development.
“The use of this previously developed site to provide eight flats does not amount to a material consideration that outweighs the conflict with the development plan. For this reason, and having regard to all other relevant matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Noteworthy in her decision is the perception that applications should ensure that developments establish a strong sense of place.
The question has occupied the village for over a year.
Martin Beeney, whose family live just 8.6 metres away from the proposed development appeared to encapsulate 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”. Congratulations Martin Beeney, you won your argument.
Pride of place goes to the social media comment that came into Bay Life this afternoon (21 January), from his wife, Elizabeth Beeney. Posting within minutes of the decision being announced she said. “It would appear that our cottage will continue to enjoy sunlight as it has for the past 300 years! The council has ‘seen the light’ – Beach Tavern appeal dismissed”..
The planning inspectorate report is in tune to a certain extent with this comment.
Sheila Holden, the inspector emphasises that any development should function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the long term.
Residents understand the eclectic nature of their surroundings, the history of the architecture in the locality, the quirkiness and eccentric charm of Pevensey Bay. Pevensey Bay is a distinct small scale coastal location.
Acknowledgement, to a certain extent, of this aspect of the setting, has now come in the final appeal dismissal.
The Guardian caught the spirit of the locality somewhat (18 September 2015), in their magazine feature “Let’s move to Pevensey and Pevensey Bay, East Sussex”. They said, “With big skies, forgotten towns and shingly beaches. What’s going for it? We may be few, but our numbers are growing”.
“Here, you get big skies, quiet, forgotten-about towns, roads with names like Sluice Lane, shingly beaches fronted by settlements straight out of an Ealing comedy (Peter Sellers used to visit his mum at Pevensey Bay) – just not for £1.5m, or anything close.The seafront at Pevensey Bay might not be Malibu, but it is splendidly eccentric, with Edwardian town houses cheek-by-jowl with shacks and the 1930s-50s bungalow estate of Beachlands”.
The possible appearance of what some local people described as a monstrous alien building, here in the heart of the village, that would block out the light not just to the Beeney family cottage, but also destroy the sense of the shape and character of the approach to the parade of shops in Pevensey Bay was a shock to residents. With the dismissal of the appeal, that shock has now receded.
What local long term resident John Davey said hit home with a view that was shared by many local people. Planning Inspector Sheila Holden herself even utilised the word ‘alien’.
Attention no doubt will turn to other misplaced development plans. Already on the Bay Life social media feed there has been comment. Victoria West said, “next please, the two 4 bed houses, on one plot, they want to build in Val Prinseps Road”.
It has been manifestly clear to many people in the community, since the beginning with regard to this application, that the proposal would have added nothing and taken away so much.
Without a strong sense of place that would have added to the overall quality of the area, perhaps the Beach Tavern proposal was always a non-starter.
Simon Montgomery
editor
