After consideration, Council obstructs wheelchair-users
The planning committee report on the controversial lift case in Harold Place surprised many by recommending ‘Grant Full Planning Permission,’ despite the application’s obvious breach of the Equality Act and the Building Regs. The meeting is on Wednesday 23 March, and comments can still be submitted till Friday afternoon (18th, at 3pm). Only after the decision will East Sussex Building Control take a look. Bernard McGinley tries to make sense of the new report.
As reported here and here, Hastings Borough Council (HBC) has applied to itself for planning permission for a new restaurant building (shown above, idealised), in Harold Place in the town centre. The planning reference is HS/FA/21/00905.
As proposed, the building is to have a platform lift, not an ordinary passenger lift. This is unlawful, and a clear instance of disability discrimination (‘discrimination arising from disability’).
Despite the coverage and the many objections, the committee report endorses the application, platform lift included. The Equality Act 2010 does not allow this. Also, the Building Regulations (Part M, vol 2) prescribe passenger lifts for all buildings. The ‘exceptional circumstances’ mentioned in para 3.22 there do not apply in Harold Place. All this is ignored.
Detail suppression
The committee report for this unbuilt restaurant mentions neither wheelchair-users nor disability discrimination, nor the Equality Act, though those concerns are mentioned frequently in the objections. It also doesn’t mention the concerns about the financial assumptions underpinning the project. It doesn’t mention the takeaway business to be conducted on site, or the bus-stop beside the proposed new building, or traffic fumes.
The Council’s own Seafront Strategy too goes unmentioned, with its considered opinion of Harold Place as
arguably the worst and least welcoming point of access to the beach and promenade along the whole seafront.
and brave talk of a ‘linear piazza’ from the sea to Havelock Road. The proposed restaurant isn’t part of that.
(Azur in St Leonards is a close contender: another story of ‘vision’ and squalor, not the ‘destination’ that was hyped by HBC and SeaSpace c.2005.)
The report smothers and misrepresents criticism. Dull pages are spent extolling chunks of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of dubious relevance, but para 112 b) is omitted, on how developments should address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility. Are ‘strong, vibrant and healthy communities’ achieved by outlets offering burgers, cake and cocktails? The report asserts unconvincingly that the development is ‘not a drinking establishment’, though the kitchen closes hours before the business does. Naturally the report also doesn’t mention the Hastings & St Leonards Equality & Human Rights Charter that HBC put high and cheap words into.
Confirmation
Following earlier criticism, the architects made a Lift Statement in late January. It neither engaged with nor refuted the charges of impermissibility regarding a newbuild property. The detail of the Regs (para 3.22 e.g.) was ignored. The letter huffed unconvincingly
we would like to confirm that the proposals are designed to be compliant with Building Regulations
But they haven’t, and they aren’t. Instead of being reassuring, it effectively confirmed that the proposal was unlawful.
The committee report’s assertion on pp37-8 about the proposed building’s platform lift is false. The proposed lift does not comply with the Building Regs Part M. The statement to the contrary is untrue. In other circumstances a platform lift could be compliant, but here it is not.
Further representation
Sally-Ann Hart, MP for Hastings, declined to comment on the application though she is also Vice-Chair of an All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Disabilities.
Comments can still be made till Friday afternoon (18th, at 3 pm), to the casefile or to: dccomments@hastings.gov.uk, or by post.
The Planning Committee is at 6pm on Wednesday 23 March at Muriel Matters House on the seafront, and is also expected to be livestreamed. Harold Place will be discussed after the Harrow Lane Playing Fields case (HS/DS/21/01044).
If planning permission is granted, the matter goes to East Sussex Building Control (BC), whose concern about a platform lift is unclear. (The merits of going to BC after and not before a planning committee decision are also unclear.) According to the report, ‘Compliance with the Building Regulations’ is ‘not material to the planning application process’.
Disabled people should not be treated so badly.
The committee report concludes:
it is considered that the development will not affect neighbouring residential amenities and is of a sufficiently high standard of design to ensure that the character and appearance of the area is enhanced.
Believe that and you’ll believe anything.
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!
11 Comments
Please read our comment guidelines before posting on HOT
Leave a comment
(no more than 350 words)
Also in: Home Ground
« Council calls off Bulverhythe Rec developmentForeshore Trust continues not to do its job »
The application was refused by the Planning Committee.
Well done to Bernard and the HOTTIE for the series of articles. I believe that without this coverage the application would have been approved.
Comment by chris hurrell — Friday, Mar 25, 2022 @ 17:55
Very disappointing that a Labour council seems so keen on using scarce financial resources on something that will bring nothing of intrinsic value to our town or inhabitants. If there was more transparency, then maybe we could understand the extremely dubious planning decisions that have been made over the years. Whilst understanding that government changes to local authority autonomy and their jurisdiction, limit their control, it is very difficult to understand why proposals that are popular with virtually nobody are rubber stamped and legitimate concerns ignored. Labour is supposed to represent the people, but a seeming arrogance that councillors know best and don’t need to explain extremely questionable decisions time and time again suggests otherwise for this council. Bunker mentality isn’t helpful when it’s used against those who actually want to support you.
Given the immediate dangers of the climate emergency we all face, the overt lies and corruption of our government and our Labour council seemingly becoming complacent and somewhat arrogant in its behaviour, I suggest we need a change from the usual discredited suspects and would recommend people in wards where their councillors are not actively fighting for positive, sustainable change to vote for the Green Party. A significant number of Green councillors would make real positive change possible. We really haven’t got much time left and it’s diminishing all the time.
Comment by Andrew Nash — Monday, Mar 21, 2022 @ 10:29
Deja vu, the natural consequence of parachuting into Hastings these outsourced planning officers with no regard whatsoever for our unique conurbation. And who has not known planning committee members who should consider their positions. I cite a vice-chair blocking a petition to grant a misleading unlawful incomplete Trojan Horse planning application in Gillsmans Hill. We have witnessed felling and abuses of previous vaunted ‘Green Ribbon’, declared unlawful demolitions – even of a listed building, ignored and without sanctions; members who cannot extract answers from planning officers, and ever changing enforcement officers. But there are elections on the horizon. So who shall change horses to elect a new team who shall drive a chariot through the incumbents’ ivory tower?
Comment by Keith Piggott — Sunday, Mar 20, 2022 @ 23:11
What a shambles the Council have made at this site – now we have
an unwanted eaterie with wheelchair users barred.
Why do our planners and members discrinate against disability ?
Anothe example is the refusal of a ramp at the White Rock hotel,
ensuring that only the able-bodied can use its excellent facilities.
Pam Brown
Comment by pam brown — Saturday, Mar 19, 2022 @ 10:18
HBC may ride roughshod over public opinion, they may try and get round disability legislation, and they may decide to throw money at a dodgy PLC to get them to take on this venture . . . but they can’t make us go there! We, the people, at least have the power of veto . . .
Comment by Jill Fricker — Friday, Mar 18, 2022 @ 13:07
NOT SURPRISED.
History of HBC ignoring or sidelining laws, rules, equality and rights, or safety and planning goes on. No Racist Non-Sexist, Non-Anti Disabled “My Arse!” as Jim Royale would say.
I reminded everyone of Mr Chownesy’s track record coming up to the election. Might not like Conservatives but did not want that one with his track record getting in, Then what would he have done?
Needed public accessible toilets not another Damn Restaurant.
Comment by J B KNIGHT — Friday, Mar 18, 2022 @ 10:00
The officer report to committee studiously fails to discuss several issues raised by objectors.
HBC seem more than happy to railroad this application through – this is an HBC application for an HBC building being decided by HBC itself without any public consultation (as recommended by HBC itself for such projects) and without due consideration of objectors comments. It has the feel of a predetermined decision in its failure to address such issues.
The report casually describes concerns about the inadequate lift, breaches of building regulations and breaches of disability legislation as building control issues outside the scope of the planning process.
One would hope that HBC would set a standard for development that exceeded the bare minimum standards imposed by law. However HBC are happy to develop a building that fails to even conform with the bare minimum standards for disabled access and to flout building control regulations.
Once can only hope that the Planning Committee are prepared to consider the issues so casually dismissed by the planners.
Comment by Christopher Hurrell — Thursday, Mar 17, 2022 @ 13:39
Go on HBC break the law.
Comment by H Grigg — Thursday, Mar 17, 2022 @ 09:36
A platform lift is slower, cheaper, inferior and (here) unlawful. The differences were discussed in the HOT article ‘No passenger lift for Council’s upstairs town centre restaurant’.
Comment by Bernard McGinley — Thursday, Mar 17, 2022 @ 09:05
I’m confused. There will be a lift, right? But it’s a “platform lift” not a “passenger lift”. Can you explain the difference?
Comment by Ken Edwards — Thursday, Mar 17, 2022 @ 08:50
Why are a Labour run Council paying for ugly new catering premises for restaurant chain Loungers PLC?
& why are HBC skimping on this (fig leaf) ‘regeneration project’ with substandard design proposals inc facilities not meeting legal requirements for disability access, health & safety, and environmental health?
& why would any ‘high quality’ restaurant steer HBC into such corner cutting?
Loungers PLC are cynically branded as a cosy, local ‘home from home’ Lounge — but are anything but, opening a new site very 2wks aspiring to 500 in the UK.
It is not like they cannot afford to fund premises. Follow the money . . .
In May 2019 Loungers PLC floated on the London Stock Exchange, successfully raising £83 million from leading investors, and valuing the Company at £185 million on Admission.
Majority shareholders are Lion Capital LLP, their founding partner & member Robert Darwent is a Loungers director.
Lion Capital LLP are a private equity ‘buy out’ firm Est.2004 & now worth £6 billion, & with off-shore companies. Their earliest ‘buy outs’ in the 2000’s included the big Russian companies ‘Russian Alcohol’ & ‘Nidan Foods’. Since then portfolio investments have boomed. Along the way Lion Capital have become embroiled in some scandals:
Bumble Bee Foods — a tuna price-fixing court case
Findus — 100% horse-meat lasagne
American Apparel — numerous debt & staff controversies.
Why would HBC (with a member & officer team led by Cllr Chowney) chuck 2 million quid of regen cash out of town to international corporations?
Comment by Mr Blair — Thursday, Mar 17, 2022 @ 08:04