SEAFORD: Latest seafront plans rejected as overdevelopment

LATEST proposals to redevelop Seaford’s last remaining seafront leisure facility into extra care apartments have been turned down.

The plans angered many residents who believe building on the Beachcomber site would be overdevelopment.

The applications were submitted by McCarthy & Stone for 51 extra care apartments for the frail elderly.

The difference between the two is that the first was for a mixture of three, four or five storeys while the second was a similar structure but included six storeys.

Both plans also included a four-storey building for 10 age-restricted apartments for affordable housing.

The proposals were rejected by Lewes District Council (LDC) after planning officers turned down the scheme under delegated powers, because they said the building would cause significant harm to the open character of that part of the seafront and the wider townscape.

A spokesman for McCarthy & Stone said, “Although the application was submitted in August we were never advised of any specific design concerns.

“It is therefore very disappointing that after a thorough review of the Inspector’s decision letter and having taken independent architectural advice that the application was refused on 23rd December on design grounds by officers (not the planning committee) under delegated powers. McCarthy and Stone will shortly be lodging an appeal against the refusal notice.”

A spokeswoman for LDC said, “The decision to deal with the application under delegated powers was due to the applicant’s (McCarthy & Stone) intention to submit an appeal against the non-determination of the application by the council.

“The application had not been determined within the normal 13 week period because important advice on the issue of affordable housing had not, at the time, been received by the council from an independent consultee.

“However, at the time the application was refused the advice on affordable housing had been received and, in the circumstances it was considered appropriate to issue the council’s decision in order to avoid going to a Public Inquiry appeal on a case that had not been officially determined.”