Low quality Pier case awaits decision

In June the planning committee of Hastings Borough Council (HBC) approved a retrospective application for Listed Building Consent for fake olde plastic wobbly lampposts on Hastings Pier (case HS/LB/24/00047). Its twin for actual retrospective planning permission (case HS/FA/24/00046) remains undecided. Bernard McGinley remains unimpressed.

A new document for case HS/FA/24/00046 has a block plan that seems to include the modern-looking lampposts towards the sea end.  The number is unstated but it seems to be about 54 lampposts, uncounted, unexplained. (The Application Form refers vaguely to ‘new lampposts’, which the HBC Validation Unit naturally accepted.)

In February the Conservation Officer wrote that there were 40 

new Victorian-style lamp columns symmetrically placed around the perimeter of the Pier deck 

 but they’re not symmetrical (except roughly). Plastic/resin and wobbly – instead of cast iron – is a poor representation of ‘Victorian-style’. In her statement she commends the applicant’s Heritage Statement’s 

thorough analysis of the historic development of the Pier and of the factors that contribute to its significance

which is untrue, even laughable. The 21st century goes unmentioned, as if it had no relation to the Pier as a 19th-century artifact with also a 20th-century history. The Heritage Statement wrongly supposes that the Deck building in the centre won the RIBA Stirling Prize 2017 rather than the Pier as a whole. The Statement is completely divorced from reality and references to ‘the historic decking’ are – at best – gibberish. The committee report by HBC planners is complicit with the fantasy of a Victorian pier:

the Victorian-style of lamp column provided is in keeping with the character of this Victorian pier and is authentic . . . 

What historic decking?

The historic decking, the Pier of the past, was very thoroughly torched in October 2010. The decking there now is not historic (though it could be if HBC tried to look after it).

Section 7 of the Heritage Statement is drivel, with assertions such using ‘appropriate materials’ (para 7.1) and:

7.2   The works that have been undertaken have largely been to improve and protect the structure of the pier and to enhance its historic character. The street lamps that have been installed are an appropriate style for the age of the pier and complement its appearance.

A 21st century Pier is not helped by its bastardisation with fake olde wobbly plastic lampposts. Section 8 is even worse, with whoppers such as:

8.3   The changes that have been undertaken have entirely preserved the aesthetic value of the pier.

8.4   New street lamps . . . are not an incongruous addition to the pier. 

8.5   The works that have been undertaken have entirely preserved the historic value of the pier.

8.6   The materials and methods are appropriate to the age and construction techniques of the structure and will ensure its longevity.

8.9   The works undertaken have had no effect on the aesthetic value of the conservation area.

8.10  There has been no change to the historic value of the conservation area as a result of the works within this application.

DGC (Historic Buildings) Consultants Ltd of Bexhill have produced a shameful barefaced document. However the flimflam was of-a-piece with the statement by a planning officer at 58:51 of the 5 June Planning Committee meeting:

Chair, the application is recommended for approval, as there are no recognised harms to the heritage value of the Grade 2 listed structure by virtue of any of the proposed changes.

Believe that and you’ll believe anything, as the Duke of Wellington once said.

HBC censorship again

A report in the architectural column of the current Private Eye reports the Pier Listed Building Consent decision of 5 June (case HS/LB/24/00047). When this was included in a later objection, HBC’s authoritarianism showed again:

The word under the black tippex might as well have been ‘competent’ — but it wasn’t. The rest of the document is on the casefile. (The incongruous case referred to at the end is HS/FA/24/00125 about windows on Cuckoo Hill. HOT reported the ‘discordant and incongruous feature’, which made grounds for refusal, so unlike the many Pier cases):

Say one thing, do another

The Council haven’t grasped that they’re not necessarily expected to or required to agree with objection comments, and that difference of opinion is not a basis for heavyhanded suppression. Similarly arbitrarily, HBC commend high quality materials for the seafront and elsewhere, but settle for cheap and nasty despite the lipservice and glossy reports and highminded policy statements.

For a listed building in a Conservation Area, the Council have the scope to decide on what is acceptable (see policies DM1 and HN1 of the Hastings Development Management Plan, and much else.) What they have decided already is self-discrediting.

The comments on the casefile give more reasons for refusing this application.

It is not known when case HS/FA/24/00046 will go to Committee. Comments or documents can still be submitted to dccomments@hastings.gov.uk

Also in: Home Ground

« Development proposes encroachment on habitats and the public highway
St Mary in the Castle: visit and save »