Development proposes encroachment on habitats and the public highway

Conqueror Road is a cul de sac running east and downhill off the lower end of Harley Shute Road, near the bottom of Edinburgh Road. Bernard McGinley reports, having been this way before.

An adapted planning proposal (new application HS/FA/24/00244) is causing local concern, as is censorship by Hastings Borough Council (HBC). The application is for:

Proposed development of site with two detached houses on land East of 46 Conqueror Road, St Leonards-on-sea, TN38 8DD. There have been dozens of objections to the proposals for market housing for four+ bedroomed houses.

Last year there was case HS/FA/23/00175 for the same site, for three detached houses with attached garages. This was refused in a delegated decision – by planning officers – for detailed reasons including massing, sewerage, breach of the building line, parking and turning proposals, and lack of information on land stability. (The new case has two units instead of three, but the houses are bigger, three-storied, and the proposals affect the public highway.)

Application Form

The Application Form is notably careless. For instance it states that the site is scrubland, which it is not (the applicant’s Preliminary Ecology Appraisal [p6] states that it is ‘lowland mixed deciduous woodland’).

To the question

Are there trees or hedges on land adjacent to the proposed development site that could influence the development or might be important as part of the local landscape character?

the answer given is ‘No’, though the trees of the South Saxons Wetlands are adjoining.

Asked

Is your proposal within 20 metres of a watercourse (e.g. river, stream or beck)?

the answer given is again ‘No’. However the applicant’s Drainage Strategy document (p3) mentions a watercourse just to the south of the site, and it’s anyway visible.

To the question

Are you proposing to connect to the existing drainage system?

the answer is ‘Unknown’. The cumulative tosh makes the local planning authority as well as the applicant look inept.

Other aspects

Threats to the Wetlands area were discussed in HOT in 2015.  Concerns about the present application include:

■ Southern Water’s forthright objection in 2023, which was:

The attached plan shows that the proposed development will lie over an existing public sewer, which will not be acceptable to Southern Water.

A possible compromise was indicated which remains unimplemented. See ‘Endgame’ below.

On drainage, the Council’s SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) finding on HS/FA/24/00244 is an ‘Objection due to insufficient information’: ‘The applicant has failed to meet the requirements to assess its acceptability in flood risk terms.’

■ The threat of landslip/subsidence:

Reportedly Groundsure carried out an environmental report on the area using data from the British Geological Survey’s GeoSure Database for a neighbouring Property, which stated in 2023:

The Property, or an area within 50m of the property, has a moderate to high potential for natural subsidence.

Policy DM5 a) of the Council’s Development Management Plan 2015 concerns land instability and requires ‘convincing supporting evidence (from a relevant and suitably qualified professional)’. The casefile appears to lack a relevant report.

■ Manœuvrability:

Turning circles – especially on a hill and in a cul de sac – are important. Parking issues include access for emergency vehicles. This consideration on its own is what caused application HS/FA/00/00289 (see below) to fail.

In the present case, the County Council’s Highway Authority commented in Highways – Further Comment (published 19 July):

it has come to light that some of the development would be constructed on the public highway.

The trespass is shown on Proposed Site Plan and Street Scene. Apparently the difficulty can be overcome with a Stopping-Up Order however.  A Refusal would be equally logical. No mention of a price is made for the site, or a fee for permanent intrusion on the public highway.

■ Wildlife issues:

South Saxon Wetlands was a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI), and later a Local Wildlife Site (LWS), a non-statutory designation applying to a site of borough-wide importance recognising the wildlife value of the site to the local community. Accordingly, bats, badgers, great crested newts, slow worms, birds and other creatures (and their protection) are considerations. As deciduous woodland the habitat is listed under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (i.e. is a UK priority habitat).

■ Tree Protection Order (TPO):

TPO 222 was made by Hastings Borough Council in 2001 and protects some trees on the site (shown on a map at the end). Oddly, the applicant’s Arboricultural Report doesn’t mention TPO 222. Worse, the Borough Arboriculturist’s comment doesn’t mention TPO 222 or the protection of trees.

■ Anthrax ripple:

Historically the area was used to bury cattle infected with anthrax. It is possible that anthrax could leach into the water table, endangering construction workers as well as residents and visitors. The Council’s Environmental Health team have commented:

. . . South Saxon Playing Field, is identified as a historic Landfill site between 1978-1989 for the deposition of putrescible waste as well as anthrax infected waste.

To determine if the area is acceptable for development, we would expect a contaminated land assessment to include a Desk Study (Phase I) . . . [and also a site Investigation (Phase II) report].

Council Policy DM5 b) on contaminated land requires ‘suitable ground investigation reports’ for developments within 250 metres of a suspected site.

■ HBC censorship:

The Comments in this case have had close attention from the authoritarian planning department, e.g.:

. . . forms of wildlife including %COMMENT REDACTED%, birds, reptiles, bats and slow worms. Plus any great crested newts that remain there.

There are %COMMENT REDACTED% who meander along Conqueror Road cul de sac and we believe there may be a %COMMENT REDACTED% within the woodland area of the proposed site.

How many unmentionable species are there?

Previous cases

There have been previous applications for development in the area, some listed here. Below the bank, the site known as ‘Land adjoining 142 Bexhill Road’, a greenfield site, was the subject of an application in 2005, by the same applicant as for the Conqueror Road site:

HS/OA/05/00739:  5 storey building with 15 x 2 bedroom flats. 3 storey building with 9 x 1 bedroom flats. 6 x 3 bedroom terraced houses. The Environment Agency objected, stating:  ‘The proposed development is unacceptable because of its proximity to the top of the bank of the adjacent watercourse (South Saxon Sewer — a Classified Main River)’.  The Council refused the application in November 2005, for six detailed reasons.

HS/OA/16/00788:  Proposed development of six detached, family houses (Outline application with all matters reserved). This outline application was approved in August 2018 but see also  HS/DS/19/00164).

HS/DS/19/00164:  For Approval of reserved matters relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale under conditions. (Withdrawn.)

HS/FA/20/00888:  Construction of six houses and associated access / hard landscaping works. | Land adjoining 142 Bexhill Road. The Planning Inspectorate dismissed the developer’s appeal in September 2021 on the grounds of highway safety.

Meanwhile in July 2021, HS/FA/21/00692 had been submitted, for

Construction of six houses and associated access / hard landscaping works | Land adjoining 142 Bexhill Road.

The four-bedroomed houses were approved by an HBC delegated decision in January 2023.

Up the bank

The Conqueror Road site also had reversals of fortune:

HS/FA/00/00289:  Construction of two bungalows with car ports and turning head. The application was refused in November 2000 because of ‘an unacceptably steep gradient creating a hazard to vehicles and pedestrians’.

HS/OA/06/00802:  5 Storey building providing 15 flats, 3 storey building providing 9 flats, one terrace of 4 houses and one pair of semi-detached houses. (That the decision was Invalid suggests a defective Validation. The casefile is unpublished.)

HS/FA/23/00175:  Proposed development of site with three detached houses with attached garages. | Land East of 46 Conqueror Road. See near start, above, and below.

Endgame

The application remains unresolved while statements are drafted on the acceptability of formally stopping up the end of Conqueror Road. Unsatisfactory aspects are many. In its most recent letter, Southern Water stated:

After investigation we cannot see any changes to the original proposal HS/FA/23/00175, therefore our comments remain unchanged.

What they indicated in 2023 was a willingness to consider a diversion of the public sewers,

so long as this would result in no unacceptable loss of hydraulic capacity, and the work was carried out at the developer’s expense to the satisfaction of Southern Water under the relevant statutory provisions.

(The casefile’s Drainage Strategy Appendix E may be an attempt at that, subject to a ‘section 106 Agreement’ between the parties, and the indicated criteria.)

The case is unlikely to be on the next planning committee agenda, to be published on 7 August. Comments on application HS/FA/24/00244 can be made to Hastings Borough Council on dccomments@hastings.gov.uk

Also in: Home Ground

« Proposal to cram Archery Ground to the max — just like old times
Low quality Pier case awaits decision »