Protesters forced Sea Change to call off felling the last two trees – for the time being (photo: CHD).

Sea Change gives undertaking on tree-felling

Sea Change Sussex has given an undertaking not to cut down the remaining two trees on the route of the Queensway Gateway road unless planning permission for the road is restored. But many have queried why it tried to fell the two last trees after planning permission for the road had been quashed. It turns out that authority for this action came from East Sussex County Council. Nick Terdre reports.

Planning permission for Sea Change Sussex’s proposed Queensway Gateway Road was revoked by Hastings Borough Council in late June. All the trees on the route had been cut down in March except for two which were temporarily spared as they housed bat roosts. But in early July, Combe Haven Defenders (CHD), which has led opposition to the road through Hollington Valley, was alerted to the presence of contractors preparing to fell the two survivors.

Protesters rushed to the site and sat under the trees to impede any action to fell them, CHD reports. The police were called but declined to take action after an intervention by the lawyer for Gabriel Carlyle, whose application for a judicial review of the decision to grant planning permission had prompted its withdrawal.

Sea Change has now agreed not to fell the two trees unless planning permission is granted for a second time. “My client agrees not to cut down the two trees to which the bat licence relates unless and until a new planning permission has been granted,” its lawyer told CHD. “My client will also not cut down any other trees.” However, Sea Change intends to continue working on the site: “We trust we will be allowed to undertake the removal of stumps and ground investigations unhindered,” a spokesman told HOT.

CHD protested against the first bout of tree-felling in March (photo: CHD).

“We are glad that Sea Change has agreed not to fell these particular trees unless planning permission is regranted,” said Gabriel Carlyle. “However, they should not have been attempting to fell them once the permission had been revoked, and we should not have been forced into a confrontation with the police in order to save them.”

The attempt to cut down the two remaining trees, a holm oak and an ash, followed the issue of a licence in April by Natural England allowing the destruction of the bat roosts, the regulatory authority confirmed to HOT. One of its conditions was that bat boxes be “put up close to the site on retained trees”.

Under the terms of the licence it was also the responsibility of the developer to secure any wider permission that would be required, NE said. In April that wider permission, the planning permission from HC, existed but by early July it had gone. An HBC spokesman told HOT, “The land is owned by East Sussex County Council and Sea Change Sussex have a licence from them to carry out tree clearance work.”

ESCC confirmed that a licence had been granted for “ecology work and vegetation removal on the section of land owned by the county council” but that this happened “some time ago before HBC withdrew planning permission.”

In a further statement ESCC added that, “While the licence granted by ESCC covered work associated with the Queensway Gateway road, it was dealt with as an entirely separate application to the planning permission sought from Hastings Borough Council. Having planning permission for the road was not a condition of the licence.”

In other words, Sea Change had official permission to cut down the two remaining trees, even in the absence of permission for the underlying project of which the tree-felling was part. Does that mean anyone who fancies knocking down a few trees can expect to get a licence for it from ESCC? Probably not, but questions will be asked about why the County Council’s licence was not conditional on the road planning permission.

And why did Sea Change think it was all right to fell more trees when the road planning permission had been withdrawn? HOT asked them the question but did not get an answer. Nor did HBC give a reply when asked if they intended to investigate Sea Change’s actions.

However, CHD believe they know the answer. In the words of Gabriel Carlyle, “Sea Change’s actions are particularly alarming as they suggest there is a presumption that Hastings Council will rubberstamp the planning application for a second time without addressing the very serious issue of air pollution.”

See also Council go-ahead for controversial road quashed

Also in: Campaigns