The Bunker – set to remain a prominent and unwelcome feature in the Country Park (photo: Bernard McGinley).

Country Park eyesore gets to stay

The widely disliked Bunker in Hastings Country Park remains with us following a successful appeal by the owner. The decision is a bitter blow for those who have campaigned for its removal, in whose eyes the council has signally failed to protect one of the town’s loveliest assets. Nick Terdre reports.

On the outcome of the appeal, Hastings Borough Council spokesman Kevin Boorman told HOT, “ We note the inspector’s decision, and have no further comment to make.” The Save Ecclesbourne Glen group, which with its 1,400 supporters has led protests against the Bunker, was more forthcoming. “This is a very disappointing result,” it said. “Rocklands have broken all the rules and been allowed to get away with it.”

The appeal marks the culmination of a series of applications, most of them unsuccessful, in which Rocklands Private Caravan Park sought permission to replace a single-storey bungalow well screened from public view with the current building. The vital permission which allowed the Bunker to be built was granted in 2013 under the so-called 952 application. For reasons never properly explained, 952, effectively a copy of a previous application which had been refused, was decided under delegated powers by planning officers, without any oversight by the elected members of the planning committee.

However, the construction that emerged diverged so much from the plans detailed in 952 that Rocklands was obliged to seek retrospective planning permission. This time the matter went to the planning committee, which last year refused permission, leading to the appeal.

Rocklands hedged its bets by basing its appeal on a number of grounds. One was that “no breach of planning control [had] taken place.” Planning inspector, Alan Novitzky, dismissed this ground noting that comparison of the actual building with that permitted in 952 showed significant differences: “…the building as constructed gives no indication that completion in accordance with the 952 permission is intended.”

With respect to the Bunker’s compliance with Hastings’ development management plan the inspector concluded that, “…overall the building as constructed fails to accord with the development plan and is unacceptable.” In this part of the appeal he also judged that, “The development as built has an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the landscape.”

However serious, these judgments did not prove terminal for the appeal. Instead Mr Novitzky decided to allow it on the grounds that “…the steps required [in the enforcement notice, ie demolition] are excessive.” He gives no explanation of why he considered them excessive – it is quite normal for a building put up without planning permission having to be removed if retrospective permission is refused.

The appellant had thoughtfully proposed two alternative schemes for slightly modifying the Bunker, of which the inspector decided to permit the slightly more demanding one. This involves reducing the height of the building by 400mm (15.8 inches) and making the balconies narrower. But it does not reduce the building to the dimensions permitted in 952 – the newly approved height is nearly eight inches greater.

Both schemes, the inspector noted, involved “less cost and disruption than total removal,” though again he offered no explanation why such consideration for the owner should weigh in his decision.

“Primary responsibility for this disaster lies with our planning department who granted permission for the bunker in the first place,” SEG says. “The approval… breached multiple planning policies and reversed a previous refusal of an identical application six months earlier. The reasons for this decision have never been properly explained.”

SEG is also sceptical about the planting scheme imposed by the inspector as a condition of the approval. “In our experience such conditions are never properly adhered to,” its statement says. “Rocklands have already breached all screening conditions imposed on the previous planning permission.”

But it says it would like to work with the council to ensure that the planning permission is followed to the letter, and calls for a planting scheme on council land to help screen the Bunker and caravan park from public view.

The appeal decision document is available on the SEG website.

Also in: Home Ground