Cuckoo Hill decision overturned by Planning Inspector

In June 2024 Hastings Borough Council’s Planning Committee of HBC showed how tough they were in refusing planning permission for a door and window in St Michael’s Place, before going on to approve fake-olde plastic wobbly lampposts for Hastings Pier. The first decision has been reassessed, with unsurprising results. Bernard McGinley reports.

The Committee decided that windows on Cuckoo Hill (near the rear of the Observer Building) were ‘discordant and incongruous’ (as officers advised) and would have ‘a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area’. The committee report also said:

The proposal results in a discordant and incongruous feature that does not have sufficient regard to its context and harmfully affects the character and appearance of the Town Centre Conservation Area and as such is not accordance with the aims of Policies DM1, EN1, HN1 and HN2 of the Hastings Local Plan, and Paragraphs 197, 199, 200 and 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The formal recommendation was to REFUSE, and Councillors duly if dully rejected the application (case HS/FA/24/00125). The Decision Letter repeated the report’s opinion.

An Inspector mauls

The applicant appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, which sits administratively within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and is an executive agency based in Bristol. The Inspector, answerable to the Secretary of State, was crisp in his/her findings, and began by correcting the HBC usage of ‘retrospective’ which does not apply here.

The crux of the matter was section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, on a local planning authority’s duty in respect of conservation areas, and how

special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The Planning Inspector found (in Appeal APP/B1415/D/24/3349642) that the changes did not detract from the Conservation Area (16, Town Centre Conservation Area), and upheld the appeal. In a striking au contraire the Inspector wrote:

12. The aluminium windows and door have a high quality appearance and are contemporary in their design . . . . I do not find that the colour scheme is discordant in the street scene.

13. . . . the appeal scheme preserves the character and appearance of the CA [Conservation Area]. The appeal scheme complies with Policies DM1, EN1, HN1 and HN2 of the Hastings Local Plan Development Management Plan, September 2015. These policies among other things require that development is of a good standard of design, which protects the character of the area and the significance of heritage assets . . .

Who knew? Dozens at the time knew, who thought that the windows were noticeably elegant (more so than the others nearby) and an improvement, and wrote in favour of the application. There were no objections. Unfortunately the planning officers didn’t know an enhancement when they saw one.

This was the same meeting where the Planning Committee decided that fake-olde plastic lampposts on the prizewinning Pier were not discordant and incongruous, and (as recommended) gave that application Listed Building Consent, unanimously. The matters were reported in HOT including here and here.  The case was also notable for being reported in Private Eye, and for HBC’s arrogance in censoring a national publication. (The censored words were ‘this lax’.)

Archery Ground threat remains

The same Conservation Officer who had no objection to fake-olde plastic lampposts for the Pier makes a finding of

No objection — no harm

to the live proposal to add an extra five flats to the Archery Ground development (case HS/FA/24/00549) through a dubious ‘variation of condition‘.

Councillors and officers who indicate a concern about discordant and incongruous features not having sufficient regard to context and harmfully affecting local character and appearance should look around more — starting on the seafront (though cases are widespread).  The record shows persistently that HBC lacks civic pride.

Also in: Architecture and Design

Council trash Pier and civic pride »