Revised proposals for a major retirement living complex in Eastbourne have been deferred for a second time.
On Tuesday (August 20), Eastbourne Borough Council’s planning committee deferred an application seeking permission to build 128 “apartments for older people” to the east of Martinique Way in Sovereign Harbour.
The decision marks the scheme’s second deferral, with an earlier version of the scheme (for 137 apartments) returned to developers in March due to concerns the proposed buildings would be too large and out of character with the surrounding area.
As a result of its previous decision, the committee had asked developer Untold Living (also known as Martinique Way Village Limited) for a reduction in the number of units, smaller buildings as part of the complex and a ‘revisited design reflecting the maritime outlook’.
Speaking at the meeting, Untold Living CEO Russell Jewell argued the revised plans met all of these requested changes. He said: “We have worked very hard with planning officers on a revised proposal following the previous committee [meeting]. This has led to a reduction in size of nine apartments and meaningful alterations to the height, massing and key design details.
“We have also agreed several conditions with officers, including those which will ensure marketing is targeted to local people and that high quality play equipment is provided and maintained as part of our landscape design.
“We believe this scheme demonstrates high quality design and place-making in this important beachfront location.”
Mr Jewell went on to point out that the site already has an extant planning permission for a large apartment building and had been earmarked for development for some time.
This view was broadly shared by council planning officers, who had maintained a recommendation to grant planning permission.
But objectors felt the revised scheme did not overcome their initial concerns, including pressure on infrastructure and the overall size of the buildings.
Objectors included Frances Lawrence, chairwoman of the Sovereign Harbour Residents Association, who said: “National planning policy says development should have amenities nearby. What is there at Site One? Nothing, no shops, doctor or dentist and with the way global warming is proceeding the scant car parking provided will be flooded too.”
She added: “The planning committee sought a reduction in scope, resulting in nine fewer apartments. Nothing more than a token. It is still taller than surrounding properties.”
Similar concerns were shared by ward councillor Kshama Shore (Con), who spoke about the traffic pressures faced by those living in Sovereign Harbour. She also reiterated local concerns about the number of facilities available in the area.
Committee members shared reservations about the scheme, with several councillors calling for a further deferral to address the scheme’s size and parking provision.
Officers warned that a further deferral would be likely to see the developer take the scheme to appeal on grounds of non-determination, so asked councillors for the authority to refuse the scheme should a further extension not be accepted.
They also warned that concerns around parking were not shared by East Sussex Highways, putting any decision based around this element on shaky ground.
This advice saw some push back from committee members, including Cllr Jane Lamb (Con) who said: “I know the punitive appeal system will kick in and I know that Eastbourne Borough Council could be clobbered by a huge fine and huge costs. I don’t want to go down that route, because I don’t want to refuse this application.
“What I am asking — and I think that is very reasonable — is another deferral to look at the parking and ways in which it can look a little bit less formidable, because they’ve already made huge improvements. It could go a little bit further and then people would be a bit happier with it.
“I think we all accept something is going to be built there, but I don’t think it is beyond us to come up with some solution where we can defer it and have another look again.”
Ultimately, the committee decided to defer the scheme on grounds of its scale, bulk, massing and appearance. This essentially means the committee asked the developer to come back with a smaller scheme and in doing so said the scheme as it was would not be acceptable without such a reduction.
For further information on the proposals see application reference 230847 on the Eastbourne Borough Council website.
