Council waste money, act for developers, and won’t say why

Hastings Borough Council (HBC) is noted for its lack of resources, which is not their fault. Why therefore would it commission and pay for a land stability report when a planning applicant hadn’t provided an adequate one? The planning department won’t explain. Bernard McGinley reports.

The case (HS/FA/24/00244) relates to Conqueror Road where it runs down to South Saxons field, and was reported in HOT last year.  Among the objections was one of 14 August pointing out that HBC Policy DM5 was not being complied with. This objection however was not reported in the officers’ delegated report, Section 4 on Representations. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) current at the time stated:

190.  Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.

Eventually the application was refused delegatedly (by officers). However the casefile has documents that cause concern. It seems that HBC were doing the developers’ work in commissioning a land survey. The cost was £1392, payable by the Council, with public money.

Preliminary

On 19 August a 4-volume study was published on the casefile, from Ashdown Site Investigation Ltd, a reputable engineering company. It was headed:

Preliminary

Ground Contamination

Risk Assessment

and

Preliminary

Geotechnical Assessment

Desk Study

Report

The uses of ‘Preliminary’ and one of ‘Desk Study’ suggest the possibility of more serious work to follow. Similarly the document includes a ‘Walkover Survey’, as superficial as it sounds. The ‘Walkover Survey’ is Section 2.1 of Volume 1 and very short, stating in essence

No evidence of land instability was observed at the time of the walkover survey . . .

The Executive Summary states

The report presents a preliminary geotechnical assessment of the site based on a desk review of geological datasets and a visual inspection of the site only.

The rest drew on the British Geological Survey or Groundsure or other sources, usually undated. Patently the document did not meet the stipulated requirements of Policy DM5 on Ground Conditions. Policy part a) on land instability is clear (emphases added):

a) On land potentially subject to instability (such as steeply sloping sites or in areas with a history of land instability), convincing supporting evidence (from a relevant and suitably qualified professional) must be supplied before planning permission is granted. This evidence is to show that any actual or potential instability can be overcome through appropriate remedial, preventative or precautionary measures. At the application stage, for those sites with a history of instability, information about the extent of remediation and/or mitigation measures will be required. Any further detail that may be required will be conditioned.

The east end of Conqueror Rd is a steeply sloping site. An objection pointed out

The threat of landslip and the absence of a geological report in accordance with HBC policy DM 5 a) on land instability.

The subsequent 4-volume report did not stifle those concerns.  Oddly in nearly 200 pages there was no mention of the anthrax reported in the area, a consideration under Policy DM 5 b).  In November a report by Milvum, another reputable engineering company, appeared on the casefile. After discussing the preliminary nature of the preliminary submissions, it concluded:

the reports submitted in support of the application are considered to be inadequate to consider the potential stability issues of the site in sufficient detail to satisfy the criteria of Policy DM5

Enquiries, blanked

Three times (by implication four), two simple questions were asked to HBC, flagged to be easily noticed:

■ Did the Council charge the applicant for the Milvum survey?

■ If not, why did the Council commission a thorough report when the applicant did not provide one (for a steeply sloping site) and was in breach of Policy DM5 a)?

Three times the questions were ducked. An HBC communications officer said:

Milvum were employed to assess the geotechnical information given by the applicant as we do not have a geotechnical engineer in-house.

The comment is off-the-point and diversionary. It doesn’t take a land stability engineer to see that policy DM5 has not been complied with. The assessments by Ashdown Site Investigation Ltd were explicitly Preliminary. They said so, twice. The Council replies were unhelpful: oblique, even obstructive. HBC appear to suppose that an expert report was needed to assess what the developer submitted. (On that basis professional snooker players should have a degree in physics.) However it is clear that the applicant’s submissions never met the Council’s stated criteria of convincing supporting evidence of remediation and/or mitigation measures, or showing their unnecessariness. Why commission Milvum to do the developers’ work therefore? Not for understanding. A previous application (HS/FA/23/00175) was refused for reasons including noncompliance with policy DM5.

An FOI request revealed the £1392 bill for the survey. As the Council won’t explain the matter, a working supposition is that HBC planning department is in disorder.

More misadministration

Time and again the Council is careless. In case correspondence in this case about potential traffic, East Sussex County Council (ESCC) asked HBC not to publish their ‘Highways — Further Comment’ document of 18 July. On the last page is the instruction:

Please use these plans for guidance for officers and do not place on the planning website.

HBC did anyway, as if they hadn’t read it.

By contrast, Tree Protection Order TPO 222 went unmentioned by the Council’s arboricultural officer as a highly relevant aspect of the site, when it should have been cited. These are indications (among others) of incompetence.

There are other hazards in objecting in Hastings. Calling an application ‘pretentious’ – though it demonstrably is – can and does result in censorship: black tippex on the objection. (A request to undo that decision failed.)  Complaining meets a standard denial, twice.

Conclusions

The Conqueror Road case shows waste and shabbiness.  The issues extend to other cases.   The immediate conclusions are these:

■  that a geotechnical engineer is not necessary to see that policy DM5 has not been complied with here

■  that it is not the role of the Council to provide what the applicant hasn’t

■  that public money is being wasted, unacceptably (and sure to cost the Council sympathy)

■  that HBC planning department is floundering, or complaisant. The Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan Principles) –which apply to HBC officers as well as members – are not being met.

Officers are not acting in the public interest.

Also in: Home Ground

Council officers recommend more flats for the Archery Ground and cutting compensation »