HBC’s new weapons against critics: censorship and a reverse-ferret

Open debate and argument about the legal and other merits of a case is part of the planning process. That’s the theory anyway. Hastings Borough Council (HBC) has other ideas. Bernard McGinley reports on recent changes, including a surprise development.

In a new low, HBC officers recently took to censoring an objection to a planning application. This removed meaning and significance from the electronic, ‘live’ version of the objection. Such censorship prevents detailed comments to members of the Planning Committee, for instance, and to officers soon to write a report and recommendation on the case. This is hardly open government.  It is however the first known case of the Council masking details on the alleged merits or flaws of a case.

Last week, without announcement or explanation, the Council reversed its action and deleted the redactions.

Nevertheless, the precedent is troubling. Redaction locally used to mean blacking of parts of HBC’s own documents — in an FOI (Freedom of Information) response to a query for instance. Now it means obliterating parts of incoming documents as well.  This is Big Brotherish — the 21st century memory hole in action.

Though HBC has rules on abusiveness and data protection, they are not relevant here. The uncensored version of the document shows this.  

The title, description, and grounds of the objection, relevant history of the site, and enforcement history of the unauthorised works were all blacked out. Even the words ‘Enforcement Query’ were obliterated several times as though the term or concept were subversive or corrupting, and a danger to readers — including elected Members. (Orwell’s ‘Crimestop’ seems close, the willed avoidance of dangerous thought.) The uncensored version of the objection follows.

Unredacted text

The objection comment that was censored was – unsurprisingly – about the holiday let at Rocklands Caravan Park known as the Bunker. Redacted text is in blue bold.

Objection – Application cannot be decided until enforcement query ENF/20/325 has been decided

HS/FA/20/00470 | Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of Appeal Decision APP/B1415/C/15/3029007 (EN/15/00028, HS/FA/14/01036) Amendments to balcony fenestration, appearance of the dining area window (north side – omitting opening casement) and omission of middle balcony post on south side | Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY 

This retrospective application has been submitted as a variation to the plans, approved by the Inspector for the Secretary of State, listing ‘proposals’ as ‘amendments’ to balcony fenestration, appearance of the dining area window (north side – omitting opening casement) and omission of the middle balcony post on south side, Rocklands Private Caravan Park. The application is not comprehensive and does not cover many other unauthorised works in the redline area. 

The application redline area includes a number of unauthorised works which are under investigation by the open Planning Enforcement Query ENF/20/325. The application cannot be decided until the enforcement query is decided. The application does not cover other unauthorised works within the redline area as detailed in our previous objections.

SEG [Save Ecclesbourne Glen] wish to make a further objection to this application on the grounds that prior to any decision being made enforcement query ENF/20/325 must be decided. The enforcement query covers unauthorised works within the redline area of this application including construction of an access ramp, groundworks (excavation, levelling of land, restoration of a bank to the East of Rocklands House), installation of hardstandings and a road surface. 

Following an enforcement query from SEG (see Appendix A) HBC visited the site, opened enforcement query ENF/20/325 and wrote to Rocklands giving them six weeks to respond to the issues. It is not known whether a formal Planning Contravention Notice has been issued.

The application is a retrospective application that should include ALL works carried out within the redline area. The application does not include the unauthorised works covered by enforcement query ENF/20/325.

On the 14/12/2020 Planning Enforcement confirmed that the issues reported by SEG would be investigated: 

Thank you for your emails regarding the above site. I undertook a site visit on the 2nd December 2020. I have today written to the owners and asked them to submit robust evidence that the hard standing/road has been in situ for 4 or more years or apply for planning permission. They have been given a timeframe of 6 weeks to comply. If they fail to apply for planning permission or submit robust evidence within this timeframe we will review this case to see whether it justifies formal enforcement action.

[signed & dated] 

Appendix A Enforcement Query – Unauthorised works to the North of Rocklands building in the Scheduled Ancient Monument 

To: HBC Planning Enforcement 

Copies to [Historic England, HBC Cllrs, officers] 

This Enforcement Query concerns unauthorised developments in Rocklands Caravan Park. The developments involve works to the north of the new building in the Scheduled Ancient Monument and within the redline area of the Planning Inspectors permission APP/B1415/C/15/3029007 and the redline area of the current retrospective application HS/FA/20/00470. The works are without planning permission and are in breach of conditions imposed by the Planning Inspector’s decision. The works are without Scheduled Monument Consent. Works in a scheduled monument without seeking prior permission are a criminal offence.  

[The objection continues on breaches, evidence, planning history, and anomalies of the retrospective application for only some of the unauthorised works.]

Complaint on censorship 

In a subsequent comment to the Council, the complainant from SEG wrote:

HBC have not had the courtesy to inform me of the redactions or the reasons for redactions.

The censorship destroys the entire meaning of the objection. The censorship prevents the planning committee, consultees and the general public from making an informed decision.

The censorship has removed the list of unauthorised works in the redline area of this application. These unauthorised works are relevant to the application which is a retrospective application and must consider all works “as built” within the redline area.

Asked by HOT on 7 January to comment about the troubling treatment of an objection comment the Council stated: 

Our complaints process is in place to look into any concerns members of the public have. Through this process we will fully investigate the points outlined by SEG and provide a response to them.

Reverse-ferret

On 8 January, the day after the request by HOT for a comment, the objection document to HS/FA/20/00470 was unredacted, without comment from the Council. Publication was misleadingly dated to 16 December. 

Before that, SEG had twice asked HBC the reasons for the redaction. The responses pointedly refused to engage with the matter.

A reverse-ferret is the practice of making a U-turn (in policy or news coverage for example) without acknowledgement — a form of organisational hypocrisy. 

Rocklands breaches

The Bunker retrospective planning application HS/FA/20/00470 previously featured in HOT here and here.  Alongside the case is enforcement query ENF/20/00325. Reference to this query was a particular target of the redaction. (Previously there was enforcement query ENF/20/00076 which was conveniently ‘suspended’ until application ‘470’ was decided — and deemed unavailable under FOI. In a rational world the enforcement query’s findings would be considered before the application was decided, because after is too late.)

The controversy rumbles on. Historic England made a site visit, concerned about the threat to the Scheduled Ancient Monument at Rocklands and the lack of Scheduled Monument Consents. Their statement on the matter is expected this month. 

At the Full Council in December, Cllrs Dany Louise and Andy Patmore asked independently about the Bunker: the need for an independent remeasurement of it and a Planning Committee site visit there. A written response from the Leader is expected soon.

Meanwhile the Council is contradicting itself over Bunker correspondence it holds and also says it does not. Both lines of defence cannot be true. There are  other instances of doublethink. 

Application ‘470’ is on the Planning Committee agenda for 19 January. The committee report makes no mention of a site visit.

Good governance:  good idea

The reputation of the planning department – and therefore the Council – continues  to decline. Material considerations are not considered.  Fees are sometimes charged to reply to planning enquiries, a wrong-headed policy which deters enquiries. Planning objections (e.g. about privately-owned Rocklands) are defined wrongly as complaints against the Council and thereby limited to one page, however complex the issues: in practice this is censorship that isn’t redaction. 

Planning notification letters were scrapped five years ago.

Tree decisions are no longer allowed to be made by Councillors, following changes to the HBC constitution.

In other matters Councillors wrongly state that officers have authority, unlike them. Officers meanwhile have a planning enforcement policy that disregards ‘trivial’ or ‘technical’ breaches. Local residents who complain more than once risk being categorised as ‘vexatious’ and ineligible for an answer.

The unredaction reported here seems unlikely to have happened without the press inquiry the day before. Hastings and St Leonards has no shortage of planning controversies — as often about questionable procedure as proposed decisions. There is no shortage of lack of accountability either.

Clumsy lip-service to the contrary cannot hide the Council’s persistent lack of civic pride.  

 

Also in: Home Ground

« Local Plan consultation: your views wanted on council’s West St Leonards projects
Bathing Pool site: campaign goes to Full Council »