31/01/2023
We hope you will join the Southsea Seafront Campaign in making known your objections to the current planning application for the design of the seafront. At the Southsea Seafront Campaign we have lodged the following objection -
Planning Application and Listed Building Consent Application 22/01721/LBC and 22/01722/LBC.
https://publicaccess.portsmouth.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&fbclid=IwAR1_2K8VmNHQZbK0rIfcFYQxry5nKV6O6yDpd5xDdAm8adGa0mlapHVmQTw&keyVal=RMUCM6MOFYA00&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=GovDelivery
https://publicaccess.portsmouth.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=RMUI6VMOFYG00
Southsea Seafront Campaign objects most strongly to these applications, which are very complex, difficult to understand, poorly illustrated and which have not received sufficient publicity for such a range of important seafront sites – .to enable people to respond to them, in principle and in detail. Reference is made to ‘pre-application discussions with Historic England and the LPA’, but people who live in the city and those who visit the seafront have not been consulted on these applications until this very late stage. We should like to see what Historic England’s responses have been as the work has advanced.
In view of the large costs to be expended on this very large project, we should have been consulted in workshops and manned exhibitions well in time to influence the design - before these applications were submitted. Why has this not happened? How can this absence of consultation be justified? These complex applications are for full planning permission. In the face of evidence that sea levels continue to rise and storms already rearrange the thousands of tons of rock delivered to the seafront, residents, property owners and people who visit the seafront should be acknowledged as important partners in the design process – which is funded from the taxes we pay. Where is the substantive ‘Statement of Community Involvement’?
The quality of the proposed design for the seafront is bleak, poorly thought out and lacking in any sign of the public art or richness of materials which were promised when the scheme was first publicised. These should have been an integral part of the design process, not an ‘add-on” once the seafront had been rebuilt. Consultants paid for by the engineering company produced illustrations and examples from elsewhere, which implied that the seafront would be locally distinctive and enjoyable for the thousands who use it as their major open space. But no brief, budget or commitment to public art was included or made, either by the engineers or the city council. An application could have been made to the ACE to fund public art along the seafront, with a lead artist, but this did not appear to have happened. Would this still be possible, even at this late stage? Local artists were asked to submit their proposals for enhancing the seafront; some were illustrated in an exhibition in the D-Day Museum, but these current planning applications incorporate none of either the consultants’ suggestions or local artists’ site-specific designs, which were voted for by the public at the time of the exhibition, raising expectations that public art in the many materials they used would be incorporated. Why has this undertaking been dropped from the designs and how can it be justified?
An example of the poor quality of the application are the engineering drawings, which are hard to interpret – and the visuals for the western section seaward of the Rock Gardens which do not reflect how the proposals would actually look. Document 22_01722_LBC-PASA mentions that views from the Southsea Briny (SF6) will be walled in by ‘a retaining wall structure approximately 1.7m in height landward of the promenade’. This structure is not shown effectively in the 1st image attached here.
What is not mentioned – and we object strongly to this – is that the width of the promenade is halved and that the wall will be concrete…We note that for further east:
‘Different finished can be used to help interpret the history of the seafront or a particular asset. This can be a form of public art in their own right but is also a very effective way of softening the appearance… The submitted GA plans indicate where these ‘feature’ walls are proposed but the final pattern/finish has not yet been agreed. It is anticipated that, with public stakeholder involvement, this detail can be agreed through planning conditions for each phase’.
As the application is for full planning permission, and the site is in a conservation area, this postponement is not acceptable, and we object most strongly to it. We also object to the reduction of the promenade to half its width. Only one ramped beach access is no compensation for both the loss of the wide promenade and a wall higher than most people blocking the views.
The 2nd photo attached shows the site and how much space would be lost and blocked by a wall people couldn’t see over.
The Historic England Blog ‘From Lamp Posts to Litter Bins: The Stories Behind England’s Street Furniture’ has many illustrations of exciting, locally distinctive and enjoyable seats, public art, lighting, paving - which are completely absent from these applications. Why do they contain none of these important features which make seafronts like Littlehampton’s enticing enough to attract visitors from other places – as well as locals? We object to the destruction of the Thirties style wooden linear shelter, which is important as a windbreak and shelter from sunlight. Can it not be reinstated as the historic lampposts and shelters are to be? If not, a modern shelter should be incorporated. The suggested design: SF5 west visuals just shows bleak featureless steps instead, with trees which would be unlikely to grow in such a windy position (ref the 3rd photo attached here)
We object to the dull, featureless design for this part of the seafront, and also that there is no enhancement of the Speakers’ Corner, which the wooden shelter protects from the wind and offers seating to watch the skateborders, or interesting paving. Traditionally, this was where speeches were made on issues of the day and the Salvation Army used to play after marching down Florence Road to the seafront. What references are there to this history in this design? We note that there will be a February exhibition at CourtX tennis centre on Eastern Road on 24 and 25 February, but this is nowhere near Frontage 5 West (Pyramids to Speakers Corner or Frontage 3 (Southsea Common). Why?
Why are the Rock Gardens not featured in these designs? Treatment of their seaward perimeter needs to be carefully worked out. The Rock Gardens are completely absent from these submissions.
The fine details will make this place an attractive place or a hostile one. If conditions are only discharged by the planning department, as residents we will have no say in what material they select, or what the benches or lights will look like. We hope that the lighting design will not just be the wooden post with three buckets hanging from it, as shown above. Each bench, bin, and sign should be bespoke commissions, using recycled materials, such as the limestone and granite blocks which the engineers promised to salvage and reuse from Long Curtain in Old Portsmouth. Why not wait until one section is completed - as we understand that Long Curtain will soon be, so people can see what they are getting and paying for? This application needs a complete rethink, worked out with people who use each area.
If the city council really wants to enhance the tourism offer that the seafront represents, they should be encouraging the private owners of the seafront cafes and other facilities to rebuild their properties, commissioning new modern designs via design competitions. Jersey’s Le Fregate (recently Listed) and Thomas Heatherwick’s Littlehampton café are just two examples where distinctive buildings enhance those seafronts, which attract visitors and locals alike. Doesn’t Southsea deserve something special too? Does the city have a Design Champion? If so, this is surely their role?
We also question the timing of these proposed works. In their response to these applications, the Environment Agency notes that ‘’Works during the bathing season May to September are not entirely ruled out’. On behalf of the swimmers who use this section of the beach all the year round, I have already raised the issue that the rock deposits have altered the beach profile, introducing currents and depressions much more dangerous than it was before works began. This has not so far received a positive reply, apart from the fact that ‘monitoring of the seabed continues.’
This lack of dialogue is symptomatic of the lack of genuine, ongoing and consultation with those who enjoy the seafront and know it best, as opposed to ‘Leave it to us, wait and see…” This attitude needs to change, if we are to have the rebuilt seafront we all deserve.
Southsea Seafront Campaign
