Hastings Pier proposals not as hunkydory as repeatedly alleged

The Pier is the subject of another application to Hastings Borough Council (HBC). Are they actual improvements or trying to lock in mediocrity that’s outstayed its welcome? Bernard McGinley reports on a situation compounded by feeble assertions and Council indulgence.

The new application is HS/LB/24/00703, for six changes to the Pier: 

New pavilion building                                               Additional toilets Decoration of balustrades, front railings and gates          Replacement beams     Installation of solar panels to existing roof Painting of existing domes.

Any hope that this is the start of a Pier regeneration project is dashed by an inspection of the casefile’s documents. The drawings misrepresent the buildings already there without permission and ignore the kiosks behind the current Pavilion. Recent Pier history does not encourage confidence:  nor does an incomplete application with blended new and retrospective elements.  

The curved West Pavilion is to be faced with an another Pavilion. Matching? The heritage statement refers sheepishly (par 7.2) to ‘a largely faithful replica to the building that was lost due to the fire’. Par 8.7 refers to providing

a better sense of its historic character albeit in a slightly revised location.

So no, not matching.

Since March, Pier sheds and kiosks have been without permission, permission under HS/FA/18/00900 having expired on 6 March 2024, as the Decision Letter indicated. Reasons for the conditions imposed included:

1.  The development is of a type not considered suitable for permanent retention.

The temporary-for-5-years permission was despite 72 letters of objection, 7 letters of support and 1 petition of objection received. The permission has lapsed.

Fearful symmetry

In six years the Pier has become a visual mess. The curved West Pavilion has been altered at the back without permission. There are storage containers strewn around, unauthorised signs, and unauthorised adverts.

The proposal is that the West Pavilion and the new one should each have both domes painted gold. The balustrade around the Pier is to be painted gold and green. The Pier’s front railings are to be painted gold. As they have looked skanky for years,

the presence of these details in the application is unimpressive. Compliance with existing permissions should come first.

Application Form

The Application Form is so full of voids, that its acceptance by the HBC planning department is peculiar. Basic information is not provided, such as Section 20, Trade Effluent — Yes or No?  Don’t the applicants know?

Foul Sewage — Yes or No? No answer to Section 15. For an application including new public toilets this is multiple incompetence, compounded by the Council’s acceptance of the grossly incomplete form.

Waste Storage and Collection (Section 7): again no answer to a simple question.

Listed Building Alterations — Yes or No? Again there is no answer to Section 10. (As all the Pier is listed, the answer is Yes.)

Asked (Section 11) to state the grade of the Listing, there is no answer. Again perhaps the applicants don’t know.

One of the few things the form states is that work has already begun, but unauthorised work on a Listed Building is a criminal offence. Although this is an application for Listed Building Consent, there is no companion application for planning permission. (For the recent Pier lampposts cases, the applications were kept oddly apart.) None of this inspires confidence in the execution of the works.

Heritage statement

The ‘Heritage Statement & Statement of Significance’ is worse, 32 pages of Pollyannaish generalisations. The principle of the proposed works is acceptable but the case is not made.  The document is very similar to its predecessors on the Pier lampposts (HS/FA/24/00046 & HS/LB/24/00047) with their inventions about the historic decking area that has not existed since the fire in October 2010.

Despite burble on William the Conqueror, Bourne and Priory Valleys and the Triodome (explained as a dome), much is repetitious filler. Par 7.6 is heartsinking:

7.6   New lighting will be provided to the Pier. The new lighting will be of an appropriate style and character to match the historic appearance of the Pier and will not detract or appear as incongruous.

What — again? Who is the applicant to say what’s appropriate? Given the repeated lack of information how can anyone decide? Planners, conservation officers, Councillors, residents and visitors are all guessing until information is provided. Given the cavalier record since 2018, doubt is a stronger suit than blind trust. There is no discussion of the roof and ridge of the existing Pavilion — rare and not improved by solar panels. There is no mention of solar panels (and even the drawings are unhelpful and inaccurate).

Though ‘deck beam requiring urgent replacement’ is part of the application, there is no technical submission to assert that the Pier is able to take the extra weight proposed. (Similarly an assessment of the Christmas ice rink has not been seen.)

Whistling

Guidance in the heritage statement is claimed from all sorts of worthy sources and yet it is hard or impossible to see how these proposals meet the letter or spirit of local or national policy direction such as on Design, Amenity, and Access, including for a listed building in a Conservation Area.

The heritage statement’s section 8 on ‘Impact’ is an extended fail, full of unconvincing assertions and platitudes. In par 8.1 a., not enough is stated ‘to understand the impacts of the proposal on the significance of the place’. What information there is suggests a complete lack of comprehension of the Pier as a Prizewinning asset in a Conservation Area, a sometime draw for visitors. Criteria 8.1 b., c., and d. are no better in terms of persuasiveness for acceptability: quite the opposite.

Pars 8.2 and .3 try to make gold-painted domes acceptable, and fail badly.

8.4 discusses the Pier superstructure as Victorian, which it is not. (Cllr Jeremy Birch as Leader of the Council in 2011 resolved that.) This untruth was also peddled about the lamppost applications last summer.

8.6 is delusional:

Similarly the retention of the sheds which currently exist will preserve the aesthetic value of Hastings Pier. These are already in place and have been shown to be an acceptable addition to the Pier.

No: these sheds are illegal and ugly, and in flagrant breach of permission HS/FA/18/00900. They make Hastings Pier look like a low-grade favela. The RIBA Stirling prizewinner 2017 deserves better.

8.8 & 8.11 refer to new lamps but not to the recent Pier lampposts controversy or the role – as conceived – of those other lampposts on the Pier that lack both permission and Listed Building Consent.

The second par 8.14 alleges blindly:

. . . The style of the new pavilion building is entirely in keeping with the Pier and would have a positive effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Whether that’s ‘entirely in keeping’ with dRMM’s Prizewinning design of 2016 or with the style of the West Pavilion (built 1916) is not explained, nor why an unmatching pavilion is right for the space.  The assertion is not true, and mistakes repetition for consensus.

In par 8.16 it is clearly false to assert that ‘The Pier would remain as a 19th century structure’ when its superstructure is strongly 21st century, as it was designed to be.

8.5 tries:

The conversion of an existing timber structure will have no effect on the aesthetic value of Hastings Pier.

The effect will be negative as it concerns an illegal shed. 8.9 too whistles unfeasibly:

Similarly, the proposed new toilet kiosk would replicate the existing kiosks and would entirely preserve the historic value of the Pier.

These sheds have no relation to the historic value of the Pier (other than to demean it) and are a planning breach. Replicating or converting illegality is no argument. A low form of bait-and-switch is being attempted. Additionally it has not been shown that toilets in a shed comply with legal requirements for disabled access.

Far from enhancing the significance of the Pier and its Conservation Area (and the neighbouring Conservation Areas), these proposals would denigrate it and cheapen it, and denigrate and cheapen them, in keeping with the slum aesthetic of the Pier since 2018, the shantytown look. Repeatedly the allegations in this shoddy application are as persuasive as ‘Pigs will fly’ and ‘Black is white’.

Opinions on HS/LB/24/00703 can be emailed to the Council from the casefile as comment, or sent as a pdf to dccomments@hastings.gov.uk

An Eastbourne precedent

Meanwhile Council enforcement action remains absent (including on the status of the central Deck building). Along the coast, work on the same owner’s Eastbourne Pier gives a caution from a previous ‘enhancement’ of a Victorian building. Applications 171397 and 171398 to Eastbourne Council were for

2 new Units Similar to the existing Victorian Tea Rooms in the open deck area to fall in line with the existing Character of this Grade 2* listed building

The result was plastic tat, clumsily added.  The design as executed was improvised, ugly and rough. Given this foretaste of what is proposed for Hastings, application HS/LB/24/00703 should be validated properly, and then refused on multiple grounds of quality. Real protection and enhancement would be a good idea.

Also in: Campaigns

« Hastings nurse fights ‘houmous’ charge in stand against Israeli genocide
Peace activists stage mass die-in at arms factory to protest a year of genocide »