No passenger lift for Council’s upstairs town centre restaurant

A town centre site in Harold Place is the subject of a planning application to itself by Hastings Borough Council (HBC). The proposed restaurant is to be on the first floor, but wheelchairs and prams won’t easily get there. Bernard McGinley is unimpressed.

In 2019 HBC refused a discreet wheelchair ramp for the White Rock Hotel, while turning a blind eye to the Pier’s many breaches of planning law directly across the road. The RIBA Stirling Prizewinner (2017) continues to be abused. With the proposed restaurant in Harold Place the Council have again excelled themselves in denying wheelchair access. Application HS/FA/21/00905 is for 

Development of site of former public convenience to provide a two-storey pavilion for use as cafe bar and restaurant

The pitch is for a ‘food led business’ with a cafe bar on the ground floor but the restaurant upstairs.  

Under the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), people gained rights to fair treatment in employment, education and all customer services. The DDA required building owners and service providers to make reasonable ‘adequate’ provision to ensure independent and equal access to all persons in all non-domestic environments. There was some scope for interpretation however.

Later the Act was strengthened, notably by the Equality Act 2010 that incorporated the DDA, and required all buildings with public access to ensure disabled access to all services. Inclusivity was in, and disabled access lifts and platform lifts proliferated. The Act’s intention is clear, to give less able people rights, including access to goods, facilities, and services.

So what is this strange proposed building in Harold Place? As a new building, the requirements for the disabled are well known, except apparently to HBC planners, who appear to know nothing about discrimination.

The platform lift is ineligible for a new-built property, and it is hard to see that it will remain as part of the application.  The headline of this article has been amended to clarify that there is no passenger lift proposed here (while a platform lift is a breach of the Regs and insubstantial in the application).

The Design & Access Statement (DAS) states:

As extensive seating is provided for customers both internally and externally at ground floor, the tenant does not require a lift to the first floor. However the building has been designed to allow for future flexibility with capability for a platform lift being installed in the future proving [sic] step free access to the first floor. 

(DAS, Part 3, p42)

The tenant might not require one but some diners (or potential diners) will. Even the Buildings Regulations have long stated that ‘reasonable adjustment specification’ means that: 

due regard must be given to any specific needs of likely building users that must be reasonably met.

The applicant is HBC, though the publicity often suggests it’s Loungers UK Ltd, the designated operator, who claim to offer a ‘home-from-home’ and say

everyone is made to feel welcome on an unconditional basis.

For the lack of a lift alone this café-bar-restaurant application should be rejected.  

Escalator

Approval began at Full Council in February 2020. By October 2021 it was explained to the same body that 

costs have increased due to supply chain issues and COVID-19. This means that the initial estimated budget needs to be increased for the project to be completed. 

The needs went from £1.2m to £1.7m and are unlikely to stay there. It is unclear why the Council intends to borrow money for this purpose. The case is not made, and the numbers do not add up. HBC project management history is not encouraging: Azur, the Millets building, the Bale House, recent Battle Road demolitions, etc., all had major cost overruns.

Reasons to be fearful

The proposal is for a lumpen, unattractive building. The ground floor is white — rapidly to become off-white from the adjacent traffic. Upstairs is blackish. The combination looks silly, an effect added to by the functional roof plant block above, with the best sea views.   

This building is not a ‘destination’: it lacks wholeness but not dullness. The balconies are small and the north one will have problems of shadow. Both will be beside traffic. 

Police concerns are substantial given the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and town-centre Special Saturation Policy Area 1, where there are issues with public order. Meanwhile there are plenty of pubs, cafés and restaurants in the area, struggling to recover from the pandemic. There’s also no shortage of empty premises that could be well converted.

The HBC building’s environmental and energy-efficiency credentials have been challenged, given the Council’s Climate Emergency Strategy 2020 criteria.  

The East Sussex County Council SUDS [sustainable drainage systems] office indicates that apparently the proposed building is to last for only 50 years, not the usual 100, and has made an objection until flooding concerns are resolved. The ‘redundant’ Harold Place public toilets lasted only 30 years. Why the low but expensive standards?

Even the HBC Conservation Officer has objected, as ‘the proposal discords with Policy HN1 and HN2 of the Hastings Development Management Plan’. 

The project is strangely similar to what happened in St Leonards about 15 years ago.  The Council decided: let’s show some ‘Vision’/revitalise the seafront/make a ‘destination’ restaurant. So public money went in but Sea Space and HBC caused damage (not regeneration), because valid concerns were not addressed. (For Azur’s Superior Lease, the Council is landlord and Hastings & Bexhill Renaissance Ltd (aka SeaSpace) is tenant.) Azur (HS/FA/04/00535) was not a success, though it had more going for it than Harold Place: ground-floor sea views for instance, and less exhaust fumes.   

Not good enough

Despite assertions, the Harold Place proposal is not for a landmark feature and does not have an attractive facade. Additionally it should not be absorbing public money on questionable assumptions. Other uses are possible for the site, such as public toilets, or a tourist office, or both.  Instead the Council proposes to erode Hastings’ exceptionality further.  

Labelling a project ‘regeneration’ or ‘high quality’ does not make it so. Clearly this building is not good enough for Hastings. There are many reasons to refuse it. Comments on the application (citing ref HS/FA/21/00905) can be made to the Council on:          dccomments@hastings.gov.uk

or by post to:

HBC Planning Department
Muriel Matters House
Breeds Place
Hastings TN34 3UY

It is not known when the case will be decided by the Planning Committee.

 

This article was amended by Bernard McGinley on 25 January 2022.

Also in: Home Ground

« What does gentrification really mean?
Sea Space sale of Ore Valley site to Gemselect concluded »