Gouging at Harrow Lane, February 2023
Affordable housing goes missing near The Ridge
The greenfield site known as ‘Land adjacent to 777 The Ridge’ (near Baldslow Post Office) was to have 50 housing units put on it. Then it became 67. Now it’s 71 proposed dwellings. Meanwhile, the requirement for affordable housing as a share of that went from 40% to zero. Bernard McGinley reports, and wonders about the roles of members and officers in decision-making. The photos were all taken from public places.
The site beside 777 The Ridge, over 4½ acres on the east side of Harrow Lane, has become illustrative of planning issues and failures locally. In October 2019 outline planning permission was given (HS/OA/17/00645) on a delegated basis (decision made by Council officers) for about 50 dwellings, of which 15 would be affordable.
Following that there was HS/FA/20/00970:
Erection of 67 dwellings together with access, open space, parking and landscaping | Land Adjacent, 777 The Ridge.
This included the requirement for 40% affordable housing provision for greenfield sites under Policy H3 (Provision of Affordable Housing) of the Hastings Local Plan. The developers accepted that 40% of the units would be affordable units: 27 of the proposed new dwellings. Application ‘970’ was recommended for acceptance (‘Grant Full Planning Permission’) by planning officers of Hastings Borough Council (HBC). The application included a viability report on affordable housing and an independent confirming assessment of it by qualified experts.
At the Planning Committee of 28 April 2021 however, the application was refused by a vote of 5-4. The decision was arrived at after effective cross-party cooperation by Cllr Beaver (proposer) and then-Cllr Davies (seconder). Following prolonged and diverse debate, the stated refusal was because:
The proposed development would represent an overdevelopment of the site, creating a form of development out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area and failing to add to the overall quality of the area, contrary to paragraphs 127 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework [2019] and Policy LRA3 of the Hastings Local Plan – Development Management Plan 2015.
The minutes also recorded of local councillor Cllr Edwards:
He expressed concern that the applicant will come back in a year and say that they are unable to build affordable housing.
Strangely the developers’ appeal was decided in 2022. At Appeal APP/B415/W/21/3285744 the Planning Inspector upheld the developers’ appeal, with a twist. The Inspector’s findings included the new detail (in par 22):
the Council accept that the development could not support a contribution to affordable housing in light of viability matters which have been discussed with the appellant.
Had application ‘970’ been presented to the Committee on this basis, the lack of affordable housing would have been grounds for refusal under Policy H3. Instead, with these cumulative changes, the Inspector did not need to consider the matter. What he considered was not the case that the Planning Committee deliberated on at length. (The Inspector also did not address the failure to provide data on spacing density of the surrounding area — another valid reason for refusal.)
00906
Another application followed, HS/FA/22/00906, styled as a ‘Variation of conditions, Deletion and Amendment’, because of ‘changes in market conditions’. The proposals include adjusting the housing mix, to lose all the flats and add some bedrooms to the houses: an obvious threat to the affordable housing aspect of the proposal.
The Application Form’s proposal to change the housing mix involved a misrepresentation of what the Planning Inspector had decided at Appeal. The Inspector gave reasons to accept – not reject – the proposed flats, and said nothing about market conditions. The application remains undecided.
Unreasonable behaviour explained
On 23 November 2022 the Planning Committee was oddly patronised by the Planning Services Manager over the ‘970′ case regarding the Ridge site. See from 48:50 on the video of the meeting, for 14 minutes. She said of the appeal for 777 The Ridge, which was for 67 houses, and refused against officer recommendation:
Just to explain that – you know – the appeal system is set up to test local authorities’ decisions to make sure that decisions are done correctly . . .
Members were unimpressed, having been this way before. The refusal decision referred to was made on 28 April 2021 (the debate starting at 2h01, and the vote taken at 2h53:30). At 2h39:50 the Planning Services Manager mentioned:
officer opinion: this development is very high-quality in terms of its design, the materials, the layout . . .
Cllr Beaver riposted about overdevelopment, environmental sustainability, design, damage, identified capacity in the Local Plan, and density.
At the previous Planning C’ee (of 7 April 2021) the Planning Services Manager told members about the ‘Son of Bunker’ case (at 1h17) about refusal and amendment:
you know, it isn’t for us as the officers to – you know – provide that for you.
However at 1h23-4 she indicated that she wouldn’t take enforcement action in the case. So whose decision-making is this?
There was the promise of more criticism for councillors at the December 2022 meeting but that didn’t happen, probably because of the awkwardness of seeing the Planning Services Manager telling elected members what they should do. Members and other officers indicated that a training session in private was a better forum for such discussions. Cllr Beaver forthrightly defended the prerogative of elected members to be independent and conscientious in reaching their decisions.
The new route in, from Harrow Lane
That was then, this is now . . .
Despite the Inspector’s upholding of a scheme for 67 units, there is a new application for 71 units, HS/FA/23/00016. There are many planning reasons for objection to this new application, including procedural ones. They include:
■ The absence of any affordable housing, and of a viability statement (and professional assessment assessing this). The Inspector in his Appeal Decision (par 22) stated that Policy H3 requires a ‘cascade’ approach, and that this had not been done.
■ The number of proposed dwellings exceeds the 50 units specified in site policy LRA3 of the Development Management Plan.
■ Key documents are missing from the application — notably the ‘cascade’ assessment in pursuit of viability, required under Policy H3 e) (and footnote 25) of the Hastings Planning Strategy. The Planning, Design and Access Statement (DAS (par 3.14) states blandly
the development of the site would no longer be viable if it were to include affordable housing.
but there is no viability statement (or professional assessment of it) in the case file.
The DAS refers to documents provided with application HS/FA/20/00970 that are not posted with the present, separate application. This is unacceptable.
Section 106 (S106) agreements and Community Infrastructure levy (CIL) details are also missing, though referred to in the DAS. Another s106 (9 October 2019) with outline permission HS/OA/17/00645 has a detailed Part 2: Affordable Housing — now superseded.
■ HBC’s own Climate Change Team objected to the proposal, dissatisfied with the disregard of renewable energy in either solar power or alternatives to gas boilers:
. . . the lack of low or zero carbon heating and power, nor any reference as to why they have not been considered (other than a reference to a district heating system) is considered . . . too significant to overlook.
■ Traffic implications for the Ridge and elsewhere seem underanalysed (and parking also). Several major developments pend close by. Local residents are discontent.
Affordable housing
Policy H3 of the Hastings Local Plan has lots to say about affordable housing. In practice however, developers often evade what had looked like commitments. Little Acres Farm, Mayfield J and the Fern Road cases showed the same trend. Harrow Lane is merely the latest.
It is not known when these cases (HS/FA/22/00906 and HS/FA/23/00016) will be decided (though National Highways have recommended delaying until 14 May 2023 at least). Comments can be made to the Council, to dccomments@hastings.gov.uk
Further information can be expected.
Despite the lack of clarity on implementation, work on the site is in full swing. The greenfield site is disappearing. In several of these applications the applicants (Park Lane Homes) falsely state that the site is not visible from a road or footpath. It is.
Work has started, though it is unclear which scheme is being built, and two applications remain unapproved.
The site from Harrow Lane
If you’re enjoying HOT and would like us to continue providing fair and balanced reporting on local matters please consider making a donation. Click here to open our PayPal donation link. Thank you for your continued support!
9 Comments
Please read our comment guidelines before posting on HOT
Leave a comment
(no more than 350 words)
Also in: Home Ground
« Tree protection failsHastings’ Dickensian Housing »
As we understand it HBC do not have a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that deals with Affordable Housing, but are still relying on their July 2004 document on development contributions. A quote from which is given below:
“The Council will be happy to give a written guarantee of confidentiality in relation to information on the viability of proposed developments and minimise the number of officials who are party to it.”
Norwich City Council, which has some excellent examples of new social housing, does have an adopted SPD on the topic. A couple of quotes from which are given below:
“In accordance with PPG, any viability assessment should be prepared on the basis that it will be made publicly available (including published online) for scrutiny, other than in exceptional circumstances.”
“Although the NPPF states that it is the responsibility of the applicant to justify the need for review of viability at decision-making stage subject to agreement with the determining officer, it also clarifies that the weight given to viability assessment is for the decision maker to determine.”
Perhaps Hastings could learn a few lessons from Norwich?
Comment by Hastings Urban Design Group — Monday, Feb 27, 2023 @ 15:56
The answer to Ken Davis’s question is that central government gave overwhelming power to developers back in 2012 by issuing the National Planning Policy Framework (1).
Throughout England, planning inspectors must ‘tilt the balance’ in favour of housing development, such as at Fryatts Way, Bexhill (2).
The framework enables land promoters such as Gladman (3) to offer a complete no-win-no-fee package. Gladman gathers an army of advisers and lawyers to overpower and sue local councils into submission (4). The NPPF is their weapon, deployment being funded through split profit on the resulting uplift in land value.
David Gladman sold out to Barratt Homes in 2022, following the rare loss of a Court of Appeal planning case the previous year (5). The loss would appear to be unusual, so the predatory approach to green spaces remains, presumably, as a business model and government policy.
It was reported (6) that Conservatives lost the Chesham and Amersham by-election partly on this issue (i.e. the Johnson proposals to tilt the balance further, on planning). However, there seems little evidence of a housing policy re-think by any of our major political parties. Population growth is recognised, fleetingly, as the cause of a housing shortage, but politics moves on swiftly to economic growth and construction as the answer (7).
References:
1. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework
2. https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/politics/bexhill-housing-development-of-210-homes-off-fryatts-way-approved-at-appeal-by-planning-inspector-3982940
3. https://www.gladman.co.uk/
4. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2876845/Despoiling-England-ruthless-no-win-no-fee-developers-exploiting-new-planning-rules-threaten-historic-countryside.html
5. https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/planning/401-planning-news/46142-court-of-appeal-rejects-challenge-to-application-of-tilted-balance-by-two-councils
6. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/18/lib-dems-win-chesham-and-amersham-byelection-in-stunning-upset
7. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/590464/Fixing_our_broken_housing_market_-_print_ready_version.pdf
Comment by Nigel Inwood — Saturday, Feb 25, 2023 @ 13:41
I have repeatedly complained about the gross overdevelopment in the area yet only now is their public uproar. Greedy Park Lane keep moving the goalposts for their own ends taking advantage of the inept Planning system.It was clear the HBC Planning Committee had previously recognised the serious overdevelopment that 67 dwellings would cause when the original outline permission for the site was for 50. Obviously HBC were penalised by the Planning Inspectorate because they had not met the government requirements for house building when pure common sense was not on the agenda.
There is already gross overdevelopment of this area with 4 major developments (550 dwellings) within a quarter mile radius none of which has any mention of essential facilities like schools, doctors and dentist surgeries.
As objectors to these developments have previously stated, the disgraceful development of Harrow Lane recreation ground, Ashdown House (around 350+ extra homes) all requiring access to Harrow Lane will only add more chaos to an already overcrowded road system. Furthermore concerns regarding water, sewerage and drainage remain a serious worry for existing properties.
Comment by John Palmer — Saturday, Feb 25, 2023 @ 10:55
I have concerns about the development as the Ridge is already at breaking point because of heavy traffic use. Many years ago I worked in the Convent that was on the Ridge. I was shown by one of the nuns the graves and headstones that were in woodland behind the convent. What has happened to these? Who gave permission for this woodland to be built on? Where are the graves and headstones now? Anyone any answers?
Comment by Joan Pannell — Thursday, Feb 23, 2023 @ 20:53
The Council’s Press Office wrote to HOT to say that:
1 Planning officers have advised that viability statements are not usually published as they contain sensitive financial information.
2 The reference to the section 106 agreement is also inaccurate – these are agreed as and when planning permission is granted.
3 Hastings Borough Council does not use Community Infrastructure Levy.
■ In reply it’s been pointed out re 1 that central government guidance is that ‘All viability assessments . . . should be made publicly available’ [NPPF, par 58].
Why don’t HBC follow government guidelines? Other local planning authorities do, such as Ashford Borough Council:
https://www.ashford.gov.uk/planning-and-development/planning-applications/making-planning-applications/planning-viability-assessment/
■ Re 2 the government says:
Government recommends that data on each section 106 agreement is published online in line with the government’s data format. The government recommends that this data includes details of the development and site, and what is to be provided by each planning obligation, including information on any affordable housing that is to be provided . . .
Why don’t HBC do this?
■ Re 3 it’s true that the Council don’t use Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The article said details were missing. (The Inspector in his Appeal Statement
(par 25) referred to ‘obligations contained in the S106 in light of the
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010’.) The case for having infrastructure contributions published in applications remains strong. The Parliamentary Briefing Paper ‘Planning Obligations (Section 106 Agreements) in England’ (No 7200, 6 September 2019) has more on what’s involved:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7200/CBP-7200.pdf
So most of the Council’s objections were misplaced.
It remains unexplained how applications with specific Affordable Housing elements repeatedly lose them all.
Comment by Bernard McGinley — Thursday, Feb 23, 2023 @ 14:55
I never had dealings with PLG. Bernard may remember in 2013 I reported another developer to borough officers and sussex police without reaction by either. I reported, early one Sunday morning on my doorstep, I was accosted by a local developer insisting I sell our 2 acre property to him. I said we had no interest, anyway a covenant prevents development. He boasted, “I can get consent, I’ve already bunged them a hundred grand!” Much later, in conversation with local police inspector I cited that event, and lack of response – just like 1997 reporting badger baiting and night-shoots in adjacent woodland. Calmly he said, “problem with Hastings is development funded by drug money”. How could the police know that? Why did they not intervene…. or did they? KP
Comment by keith Piggott — Wednesday, Feb 22, 2023 @ 23:21
Excellent article.
The developers have a history of using minor variations to change the size of the development. At Fern Road they misused minor amendments (with the full cooperation of the Planning Department) to transform a development of 26 2 bed houses into 26 4/5 bed houses.
The developers are also very adept at avoiding any affordable gousing contibutions. At Fern Road they avoided any contributions by breaking the development into 3 seperate areas each below the affordable housing threshold. At High Breezes they contributed a notional 50k on a development of around 80 houses. This time thay have evaded any contributions at all – despite the application originally specifying 26 units.
The developers have a track record of twin tracking. This time they are running a minor variation and a full application in parallel.
HBC claim that climate change is now central to everything that HBC does. The HBC Climate change team object to the lack of any information concerning renewables or alternatives to gas central heating. Just like previous applications this one makes no attempt to build energy efficient homes or use renewables/ air source pumps. Despite relying on the emerging Local Plan to justify the greater number of units the applicant studiously ignores policies that would affect the application concerning sustainable design and energy efficiency. The proposals specified in the emerging local plan policy DP3 are conveniently ignored.
It’s unlikely that the Planners or Planning Committee will dare challenge them having recently lost an appeal on the same site.
Comment by chris hurrell — Monday, Feb 20, 2023 @ 16:38
Well-researched, Bernard. Yes, the developers (Park Lane Homes) have adopted a cavalier attitude to their operations from Day 1. HBC should enforce a halt at this site. It seems to me that the developers have been hoping that no-one would notice what they were doing because of the ongoing development of the Harrow Lane Playing Field development right next door (people assuming that the two operations were one and the same). It should also be halted because of obvious over-development in this small area – with the even bigger developments of both Harrow Lane Playing Field and Ashdown House right next door.
Comment by DAR — Monday, Feb 20, 2023 @ 10:09
Yet again thanks have to go to Bernard for shedding light on another planning fiasco but we surely must ask ourselves why does this go on? Is planning policy at fault or is the officer/Councillor interface failing, or are the commercial developers just too well armed? Or is it that the public show hardly any interest in lodging objections to site allocations in the local plan when it comes up for review?
The planning system continues to fail to provide sustainable development, which includes affordable housing and improved local services, and yet we struggle on with a system obviously unfit for purpose.
Comment by ken davis — Monday, Feb 20, 2023 @ 09:10