Country Park anger

There have been some strange developments down by the Hastings Country Park… Bernard McGinley gets his wellies on to investigate some slippery territory.

Unwanted change in the Hastings Country Park is causing anger and indignation across the Borough, because the special atmosphere of the Park is in severe jeopardy. Its sense of place has been eroded lately, the wild coast appreciated by Holman Hunt and many others no longer as special or recognisable as it was.

In the 1990s the ‘holiday let’ run by the Rocklands Holiday Park in Rocklands Lane was deemed by English Tourist Board not to meet their standards. Reasonably enough, they sought renewal of their prime asset. Several planning applications followed, distinguishable mainly only by Hastings Borough Council case reference number. (Just the last three digits is usually sufficient for identification.)

In 2009 permission for a ‘Replacement Holiday Dwelling’ (HBC case ref HS/FA/08/00869) was sought.  This two-storey proposal was rejected in March 2009.

Roof alterations to form first-floor accommodation (‘including disabled accommodation’) were then proposed (ref:  HS/FA/10/00492) and given permission in October 2010. This was under ‘delegated powers’ and the case did not need to go to Planning Committee.  Theoretically the building now had two floors, not one.

Then in 2011 application was made to change Condition No 2 of the roof alteration application, which was that the building be kept as a holiday let only and not permanent accommodation. This application (HS/FA/11/00043) was however refused in March 2011 because it would have created a residential unit within the building, ‘an unsustainable rural location’.

Still trying, in late 2012 the Caravan Park again asked Hastings Borough Council for planning permission to build a new holiday home. A new two-storey building with balcony was proposed, to replace the old bungalow. Permission for this development (case ref HS/FA/12/00471) was refused in July 2012 by HBC, because its scale, bulk, massing, and height, would in this sensitive countryside location not be ‘small scale’ and would be excessive in relation to the scale of the existing dwelling, and to the provision of a single replacement unit of holiday accommodation within the site, to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to represent an undesirable and unjustified degree of intensification of development within the site, which would be detrimental to the protection of this part of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and contrary to . . .

Numerous planning policies were then cited:
DG1    Development Form
L2       High Weald Area of Outstanding Beauty
L3       Development Outside the Built-Up Area
T7       Development within Caravan Sites
EN1     Built and Historic Environment
EN4     Conservation and Enhancement of Landscape
C1       Development within Conservation Areas
C6       Archæological Sites and Ancient Monuments
and the government’s National Planning Policy Framework.

Hope springs eternal however, and there was another application (case ref HS/FA/12/00952) for a new holiday let, two-storey with balcony, supposedly on the same footprint.  Dropping the previous landscaping proposals meant there were no longer formal concerns by the County Archaeologist.  Again the case was dealt with under ‘delegated powers’ and the Planning Committee did not consider it.  This time, in February 2013, and with the precedent of HS/FA/10/00492, planning permission was given.

Somehow the previous objections melted away.  The professional views of the High Weald AONB Unit (specialist advisers on care and management) were:
The development does not appear to affect the components of natural beauty identified by the High Weald Management Plan 2004, and as the application is a replacement on the same footprint (albeit slightly larger) the development is unlikely to have any significant impacts on the AONB, and the Unit has no further comments to make.

Yet only months earlier they had said of application ref HS/FA/12/00471:
The development will be very visible in a highly sensitive location, close to the SAC [Special Area of Conservation] designation and Hastings Country Park. A simple like‑for‑like replacement would be preferable to this larger and more intrusive development. The new building’s height and mass could introduce an adverse impact on the surrounding area, which is highly sensitive due to its character and designations. It does not therefore contribute to the conservation or enhancement of the natural beauty of the AONB.

So it was that a two-storey building went up at the end of Rocklands Lane. But worse was to follow, because the building as built bore scant resemblance to the building that had been given permission for. Many of the users of the Country Park are upset by the transformation (including its administrative history).

Among the objections is that the total area of the balcony is 63 square metres rather than 34:  an 85% increase. The balcony is 40% deeper and on the southwest side is 4 metres longer than approved.

The footprint of the ground floor is 7 square metres bigger, and there are additional windows.

Trees and shrubbery shielding the building were identified in advance, but these were removed during the development — in breach of Condition 5 to provide ‘a plan to increase the screening effect of the hedges and trees’ of case HS/FA/12/00952.

One objector suggested a link with activities that have greatly contributed to, if not actually caused the devastating landslide suffered below in Ecclesbourne Glen by the removal of vegetation – trees and shrubbery and the inclusion of large areas of concrete, roads and hard standing for the caravans where rain water cannot be absorbed so hence it runs straight off the slope and has washed away a huge area of the bank.

Now another planning application is with HBC planning department:
HS/FA/14/00406 | Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission HS/FA/12/00952 – Minor amendment showing change of ground floor plan, additional & altered window positions, & extended balcony. (Retrospective) | Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY

‘Minor’ seems oddly – though typically – inaccurate, but the key word is of course ‘Retrospective’:  permission is being sought for developers’ discrepancies that were not minor but appear systematically to have flouted the applicable policy and guidance, as ventilated in many applications.

An official response by the Council has yet to be published, and its recommendations too.  Accept?  Refuse?  If refuse, to what design and state should the building and grounds be returned?  And who should pay?

Can the Country Park be largely returned to how it was, rural and not suburban?  No‑one knows.

The planners have some explaining to do about the history of the case and the site.  In the meantime, statements of objection are now into three figures.

Also in: Home Ground

« Red Cross seeks volunteers
Chris’s party is over »