Council inconsistency puts Hollington church at severe risk

Another application to redevelop St Anne’s church was rejected recently, but the threat – even likelihood – of demolition remains. The Hastings Borough Council (HBC) response has been a turnabout. Bernard McGinley reports.

Recently there was an application affecting St Anne’s church in Chambers Road, Hollington:

Demolition of redundant church and erection of 5 dwellings with on-site parking.

On 9 August, planning application HS/FA/23/00448 for market housing was refused by HBC. 

In September 2022 a remarkably similar case (HS/FA/22/00028:  ‘Demolition of redundant church and erection of 5 dwellings with on-site parking’) was also refused (Minutes, section 368). There the resemblances largely end. The first decision was an HBC Planning Committee one. The later one was a delegated decision, by council officers. (An oddity is that the 2023 case attracted enough objections to go to Committee yet was refused under delegated authority. The previous application was recommended for refusal but went to the Planning Committee.  There seems to be a breach of the HBC Constitution Planning Protocol:  Part 5, Appendix 1, Par 12 a).)

The 2022 [0028] decision gave as reasons (here summarised) for refusal:

1.   harm to the character and appearance of the area

2.  effect on access to the public pavement

3.  loss of the community facility

4.  loss of a building of local architectural and communal significance.

With the 2023 case [448], the decision letter gave its refusal reasons as:

1.   harm to the character and appearance of the area

2.  poor design and layout regarding bins

3.  unsatisfactory parking proposals and traffic implications

4.  detriment to existing parking arrangements and road safety.

Reasons 2, 3 and 4 (from officers) are strikingly different from members’ reasons last year.

As is HBC’s way, the ‘delegated report’ was published at the same time as the decision was. (With committee decisions, the committee report with recommendation is published a week in advance.)  The delegated report understates the numbers of objections that were received. It also misrepresents the grounds for objection, and suppresses mention that among those given reasons is that St Anne’s church is listed in Pevsner, the authoritative architectural guide.  

St Anne’s, an elegant brick-and-flint building of the 1950s, was designed by the Brighton architects J L Denman and Son.  The flints were salvaged from All Saints church in Brighton.  Among much else, Denman was involved in the restoration of Canterbury Cathedral from war damage.  He was a vice- president of RIBA.

The Twentieth Century Society objected to both applications and pointed out the growing interest in the achievements of the Denman family and their associates. The Council for British Archaeology (CBA) also objected twice. 

HBC Conservation Officer U-turn

For the 2023 case, the HBC Conservation Officer’s summary conclusion was:

Less than a year ago however, a different HBC Conservation Officer concluded:

before going on to give substantial reasons to refuse the application.

As can be seen, there are only four options on the summary scale, and this case has gone from one end of the scale to the opposite end. Obviously being in Pevsner counts for nothing, not even to nudge the officer to think outside the box.  The slackjawed full statement was:

The redundant church is not a listed building, and it is not in a conservation area or the setting of any other designated heritage assets. Therefore, no comments have been provided as the works would not affect the character or the appearance of a conservation area or the setting of any other designated or non-designated heritage asset.

There was no comment on why a colleague’s verdict was apparently so mistaken. It’s as if the character or appearance of Hollington doesn’t matter, or Pevsner isn’t heritage (and carefully designated too).

In another show of indifference, the report on 448 states prissily:

there has been no application to formally register this church as a non-designated heritage  asset.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states: 

192.  Local planning authorities should maintain or have access to a historic environment record. 

The NPPF explains (p67) that such assets are ‘identified by the local planning authority’, a process known as Local Listing.  The Council is aware of the issues and could put St Anne’s on its Local List. This would give it some measure of protection instead of none, while possibilities of conversion to residential use are explored, and Council Policy HN5 on non-designated heritage assets is considered.

Additionally members and officers could consider NPPF par 152, in order to

shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions . . .  encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.

and also pars 189, 194, 195, 197 and 203, on appreciation of a
non-designated heritage asset.

In its decision letter on 0028 of 29 September 2022, HBC wrote:

The proposed demolition of the church building . . .  would result in the total loss of a building of local architectural and communal significance, which has been identified as an undesignated heritage asset.  The loss of the heritage asset has not been clearly or convincingly justified . . .

How times change.

Demolition

It may be too late. Last November the developers obtained permission for demolition anyway, in a controversial process (HS/DM/22/00835). Historic Buildings & Places (HB&P), formerly the Ancient Monuments Society, objected, but the delegated decision went the other way.

That option remains live for another 2¼ years. An application with a design that’s better (or allegedly better) can be expected.

Also in: Campaigns

« Young Strandliners needed!
Hastings Rental Health Crowdfunder »