Hastings & St. Leonards on-line community newspaper

Ecclesbourne Glen protest picnic last Sunday, 15 June © Dave Reading

Country Park still threatened

The previously reported ‘Country Park anger’ is intensifying, Bernard McGinley gives an update.

Over four hundred objections (and counting) were sent to Hastings Borough Council, in protest against the new building in the Country Park (case reference HS/FA/14/00406). The application is retrospective, because the building now on the Rocklands caravan park site, obtruding into the Country Park, is not the one that planning permission was given for.  For some Borough residents, the abuse of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) – as well as of the planning process – should be enough to end the possibility of this new blight of the landscape.  The official recommendation of the HBC Development Manager however is:  ‘Grant permission’.  An alternative response would be to report the case to Enforcement for planning breach.

A closely related controversy is the treatment of earlier cases.  In brief, case HS/FA/12/00471, a planning application for a two-storey building on the site of the then existing bungalow at Rocklands was refused planning permission for a variety of predictable reasons.   Application HS/FA/12/00952 soon followed.   Page 2 of the HBC report stated ‘This application follows refusal HS/FA/12/00471 for the same proposal.’.  Even so, this ‘same proposal’ was approved.  (As ‘delegated powers’ were involved, it did not even go to the Planning Committee.)

Many are concerned about these Rocklands cases and that HBC seems to be neglecting its statutory responsibilities.  The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2014-2019 (and its predecessors) explains these clearly.  Paragraph 1.1 begins: ‘The primary purpose of AONB designation is to conserve and enhance natural beauty’.  The formal duty to have regard to that beauty and its conservation exists under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

Paragraph 3.4 of the Management Plan explains that as a planning body, the Council MUST ‘take the AONB Management Plan into account . . .  in the assessment of planning applications’.   Paragraph 1.8 on ‘the duty of regard’ also shows the obligation to consider the purposes of AONB designation in its decision making.  Compliance is scant. Instead, Hastings Borough Council has ignored the law, and government guidance, and its defined duties (including Duties on relevant authorities to have regard to the purposes of National Parks, AONBs and the Broads: Guidance Note (Defra, 2005)).

Many protested against the acceptability of the present application — for reasons simple, intricate, design-related, policy-based, procedural, pedantic (as planners can be), witty, legal, heartfelt, local, and even international, given the status of the Country Park. (And what are the HBC criteria for ‘minor non-material’ and ‘minor material’ amendments?). The High Weald AONB Unit of East Sussex County Council has also made a statement opposing this development:
This application  by extending the balcony  and increasing the physical mass and obtrusiveness of the construction has materially changed the scale and impact of the development, from that previously commented upon.
On balance, I [the Director] consider that the development, in such a visible and sensitive location, will have a serious impact on people’s enjoyment of the AONB special qualities and will not contribute to conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the area.

The case is scheduled to be discussed at the HBC Planning Committee on Wednesday 18 June at 6pm at the Town Hall. If the case is considered, Old Town Councillors John Hodges and Dawn Poole are understood to be speaking against this unilateral and de facto expansion of Rocklands into the Country Park. Having organised a petition in protest, the Friends of the County Park are also allowed to address the Committee for five minutes.

People are also concerned about the recent Ecclesbourne Glen landslips. The interim report on these, commissioned by HBC from Coffey Geotechnics, is inconclusive about their causes and recommends further investigation (‘a more definitive stability assessment and hazard zonation’).  It also recommends that the drainage and water systems of the caravan park be examined and that the lowest terrace not be used for caravans.  To its credit, HBC has made the report available online (there are also appendices.)

The Right of Way past the site to the rest of the Country Park is at risk of being lost, possibly forever.  The several videos by Steve Ward on the damage at and near Ecclesbourne Glen provide further information and are worth watching, such as this link on YouTube.

For some, the erosion has been procedural and administrative, democratic, and even moral, as well as physical.  Could this contravention (retrofitted) be the opening needed for more development on our treasured green spaces?  What will we bequeath future generations if we allow this to happen?

In the present case, this retrospective application proposes wanton damage to the Country Park. 40 years ago, in July 1974, the official plaque for its opening celebrated a Country Park of UNSPOILT CLIFF WALKS, WOODLANDS AND GLENS.

Few, outside the planning department want it otherwise…


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!

Posted 14:42 Wednesday, Jun 18, 2014 In: Home Ground


Please read our comment guidelines before posting on HOT

  1. patricia stephenson

    Those responsible for this disastrous original planning application should be brought to account without further delay: Questions need to be asked as to how the chief development officer thought it correct procedure to advise these caravan owners how best to present the application for this monstrosity.

    They should have been shown the door with the explanation that development on this site could not be recommended due to the special features of the site.

    But instead of this these people were virtually told how to present the application – the officer went as far as to say that he ‘liked the design of the building’!!!! And bingo! All done and dusted and now we have this hideous building in situ with little hope that it will ever be removed. Apparently work continues on this eyesore – why hasn’t the council slapped a ‘stop order’ on further works to this site???

    Planning officers are there to protect Hastings from rogue developments and also to advise the planning committee. Neither of these requirements were fulfilled in this instance. They even recommended approval for the retrospective application.

    Why does it appear that the planning department is so keen to appease these caravan owners?

    Comment by patricia stephenson — Friday, Jun 27, 2014 @ 14:10

  2. David

    What happens now is a relentless campaign to get the build stopped (the decision does not, if believe, make it illegal for work to continue unless an enforcement order is issued). Two Planning Committee members, plus Old Town Ward Councillor John Hodges, called for the initial approval to be revoked. This would be natural justice but we believe we have an uphill struggle to get HBC to commit to the legal expense and potential compensation that this would incur. Tell us what you think on this at .

    Two PC members condemned the practice of putting through retrospective amendments and one was scathing about the lack of enforcement of the original designs, so I think that the Development and Enforcement functions of the HBC Planning Department have not got away unscathed. Many of us feel that an urgent and independent review of HBC planning need to be undertaken and we will keep pressing for one.

    The article above has done a wonderful job of highlighting the geo-technical issues that require urgent additional specialist investigation and action to arrest the ongoing instability. It also highlights the tree and shrub replacement, access to and across the Glen and mush more that needs a constant oversight and pressure. As has been said so often, we are not going away!

    Comment by David — Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 @ 04:37

  3. ..Angela Childs

    but what happens now.?

    Comment by ..Angela Childs — Wednesday, Jun 18, 2014 @ 22:59

  4. ..Angela Childs

    brilliantly done & written

    Comment by ..Angela Childs — Wednesday, Jun 18, 2014 @ 22:56

  5. Chris Cormack


    Retrospective planning application rejected!

    Comment by Chris Cormack — Wednesday, Jun 18, 2014 @ 21:54

  6. Elizabeth bennett

    Come on Hastings. We are all waiting with baited breath to see if you can rise up to your responsibilities and protect this wonderful headland for future generations. The building HAS to come down!!!
    It is no longer unspoilt beauty but blighted by selfish construction.

    Comment by Elizabeth bennett — Wednesday, Jun 18, 2014 @ 21:29

  7. julia

    Well written, thanks Bernard

    Comment by julia — Wednesday, Jun 18, 2014 @ 20:47

Leave a comment

(no more than 350 words)

Also in: Home Ground

More HOT Stuff

    HOT is run by volunteers but has overheads for hosting and web development. Support HOT!


    Advertise your business or your event on HOT for as little as £20 per month
    Find out more…


    If you like HOT and want to keep it sustainable, please Donate via PayPal, it’s easy!


    Do you want to write, proofread, edit listings or help sell advertising? then contact us

  • Subscribe to HOT