Open letter about Next Wave build to RDC chief executive Derek Stevens

Tom Foxall, English Heritage’s historic buildings inspector, has recently written to my brother: “It is unhelpful that this wall was not shown on the application’s elevation drawings or on the 3D model that was produced to illustrate the scheme.”

Both of these omissions would have highlighted the adverse effect that the wall would have on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and may well have influenced his consideration of this structure,

When the wall was then joined by what appeared to be a WWII gun emplacement next to the Colonnade, astonishment turned to shock.

Firstly, and perhaps of the greatest concern, because material changes to the original plan were not the subject of a fresh planning application.

Secondly by the visual aspect of these two structures and the way that they not only obscured much of the previous views both to and from the Pavilion and the promenade but also, from the east, the views of the Colonnade’s cupolas and balustrade.

Previously all of these long-admired views had been preserved by the design of the original path and its surrounding structures.

The setting of these two listed buildings has always been considered to be so important that every previous proposal to alter any aspect of either that setting or the buildings themselves automatically triggered an application by RDC to English Heritage to seek the latter’s consent.

That is how the system is supposed to work.

For example in 2009 RDC applied to English Heritage for listed building consent to construct a building to house a circular staircase in the middle of the Pavilion terrace. English Heritage received objections from Save Our Seafront among others and ruled that “it is primarily for the visual impact on the setting of the Colonnade and the De La Warr Pavilion that we object to the proposed circular staircase”.

That proposal was then consigned to history.

Why then were the recently built and equally obtrusive structures described above not also properly referred to English Heritage (and the residents) before construction commenced?

As a further example, the two new short lengths of balustrade soon to be built above the Colonnade steps are much less obtrusive and yet not only did RDC refer these to English Heritage, it also took the precaution of engaging a “heritage” architect, Anna Sullivan, to design them. The design is similar to the balustrade on the Rowing Club’s roof and could, with advantage, also have replaced that part of the wall that now projects above the terrace.

As far as the ventilation tower is concerned, in the original planning application the roof of this structure was clearly shown as below the level of the terrace and not, as is now the case, above.

Tom Foxall considers that such a major and material change to the plan that he had originally approved required a fresh planning application, including a further application to English Heritage for listed building consent.

If anyone other than RDC had decided to build an extra storey on his or her house without seeking planning permission, they would undoubtedly be required by RDC to either restore the property to its original condition or, at the very least, to submit a retrospective planning application. The latter option would then present the elected councillors on the planning committee, and residents, with the opportunity to consider the acceptability or otherwise of the alterations.

Why has this not happened with RDC’s own proposals outlined above?

RON STORKEY

Chairman SOS, Save Our Seafront