Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
The many reasons cliff museum plan Is flawed
1:41pm Tuesday 26th June 2012 in Letters
There are many reasons Skipp thinks the Council’s plan to build a seven-storey business conference centre on the cliffs is flawed.
The Council’s proposal breaks the connection between the Saxon King’s burial chamber and his grave goods.
National Trust’s management told us:“Break the connection between the burial chamber and the artefacts and you risk losing the majority of the overseas tourists.” Sutton Hoo gets 30,000 overseas visitors per year. They come to see where the treasures were found”
The cliffs site represents a major flood risk, the council’s own flood risk analysis clearly shows the building will not survive until the end of its designed life.
Two flood risk assessments have been carried out, on behalf of the council. The first during the options appraisal process, was, in our opinion, manipulated by assessing the risk as an average across the entire elevation of the site, not on the risk at the lowest elevation.
A second assessment is frankly shocking: Annual flood risk first two floors 2020 – 0.5 per cent Annual flood risk first two floors 2055 5 per cent Annual flood risk first three floors 2115 – 100 per cent.
It’s not a museum, it’s a business conference centre: Have no doubt the museum aspect of this building is incidental to its main purpose.
The grave goods of King Saebert are the excuse the council is using in a desperate attempt to raise funds to build its desired conference centre.
It’s vast expense is completely unrealistic: Southend Council has for years claimed the proposed building would cost £35m, this is not true and it knows it. The projected cost of this proposal is £50m and this doesn’t include any contingency for inflation.
It’s based on an outdated concept. Their museum concept involves glass cases and a sterile, soulless environment.
It would result in damaging the character of the Clifftown Conservation area for ever. Furthermore, if it gets away with this it will use it as an excuse, it will call it a planning precedent, to allow further development in the conservation area.
Patsy Link, Sheena Walker and Mark Sharp
Comments are closed on this article.