Planning committee proves decisive for pier and Stade

Would the Stade footpath get a reprieve? Would the Pier sheds be refused permission? Would sound arguments prevail? Of course not — this is Hastings. Observing the planning committee at work, Bernard McGinley gets the Mugsborough Blues.

The March planning committee of Hastings Borough Council (HBC) met and soon got down to business about the proposal to put five large garden sheds – or ‘kiosks’ as they are called in the application – on Hastings Pier. Some councillors reported personal or prejudicial interests, and Cllr Trevor Webb even left the room. Cllr Alan Roberts continued as chairman, though his friendship with the pier’s owner, Mr Gulzar, is known and might be perceived as a prejudicial interest.

Pier

There were some late modifications for case HS/FA/18/00900. The case officer explained that the proposed sheds were now only for five years, permission expiring on 6 March 2024.   

The petitioner against the application spoke well about the issues involved but councillors did not inquire further.  The owner ‘Sheikh’ Gulzar was there and also addressed the committee, explaining how in 54 years he had worked so very hard.  He suggested that people should put their money where their mouth was — as though local residents had not done that in extensive fundraising for the pier, before it was suddenly sold to him at an advantageous price last summer.  Then he spoke about Eastbourne Pier.

Conservation Management Plan

For reasons of better planning, the council was ready (in the Decision Notice, Note 5) to advise the applicant:

The applicant is strongly advised to develop a Conservation Management Plan for the development for the Pier as a whole.

Such involvement is only voluntary, and Mr Gulzar did not agree to this, though he was very polite.

(On this matter, Mr Gulzar’s colleague Brett Maclean told HOT: “…the principal planning officer confirmed that CMP’s are advisable for larger scale developments and not necessary for the pier until major development is proposed.

“Certainly Mr Gulzar at the planning meeting said he would be happy to engage with stakeholders and should a CMP be in place he (or a representative) would be happy to engage.”)

The case officer explained the condition (paragraph  7.3 of the committee report) of class ‘A1 use only for the entirety of the lifetime of the development’, a retail use that includes sandwich bars.  Strangely, class A5 (‘Hot food takeaways:  For the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises’) went unmentioned, though fast food was understood to be a main purpose of the sheds.

With the announcement that the sheds are to be free-standing, not fixed, the question of plumbing came into play — except that it didn’t. Can such plumbing be sound? Skinners recommend concrete bases for all their log cabins. That went unexplained too, as did the question of greasetraps on or under the pier. (Somewhat conveniently, drainage is a building control issue, and therefore not one for the planning committee.)

The application was felt to be ‘on balance’ acceptable, to bring the pier back to life. Cllr Warren Davies proposed and Cllr Matthew Beaver seconded. The sheds were approved by eight votes to one. The sole objector was Cllr Phil Scott, who observed that what he saw was sheds, and that something more substantial was needed.  He also wondered about maintenance arrangements on the pier.

The case officer and councillors kept using the term ‘kiosks’ for the proposed large sheds, and referred to the existing small kiosks on the pier as ‘sheds’. This was confusing.

Award-winning Hastings

Approval of the Listed Building Consent application (case HS/LB/18/00732) was proposed by Cllr Davies and seconded by Cllr Beaver.  It too was approved 8–1.

Two evenings before, at the HBC Cabinet meeting, Cllr Andy Batsford had loudly explained his vision of an “award-winning” Hastings. That Hastings already existed when the pier was shortlisted in 2017 for the Stirling Prize of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), against national competition — and won.

Now the council is treating the heritage of a listed building in a conservation area, acclaimed by RIBA, with five large garden sheds.  Other councils have been laughed at for less.

Stade

The Stade Amusement Park (HS/FA/18/01009) as discussed was mostly about the treatment of the pathway — which though regarded as a public right-of-way, was not.  The case officer explained that right-of-way status was a matter for “the landowner” without explaining who that was.

Elsewhere there were references to the owner’s commitments to keeping the pathway open (the proposed narrower, twistier one). This suggested that it was for the amusement park to give assurances about there being no closure.  Some felt it was for the trustees to do their job and protect foreshore assets.

In the Planning Statement of 22 February, about the ‘enlargement’ of the amusement park (into what?), the applicant’s consultants referred to the footpath as a ‘private accessway’ (para 3.10). The accessway is hardly ‘private’, and there is no clear evidence that it is the amusement park’s. In over a year the planners and members and trustees never clarified the matter, or explained how there are at least two sites separated by the pathway. A two-site amusement park makes the assertion of Permitted Development Rights more difficult.

From late 2017 the Foreshore Trust maintained a near-total silence, an apparent dereliction of duty. Cllr Davies helpfully reminded the committee that the Foreshore Trust had not objected to the application.

Stated objections

Anne Scott of the Old Hastings Preservation Society spoke on the petition of objection, and the negative implications of the committee report. Bernard Baker of Baker Architectural spoke on behalf of the applicant.

Cllr Dany Louise, as ward representative, spoke to object to the loss of footpath land. She mentioned how the Coastal Users Group (CUG) were also opposed to the proposal, and that this was not scaremongering or nimbyism. The Foreshore Trust was created in 1893 for a reason, she said: too often ‘regeneration’ meant the privatisation of public land.

In discussion however the committee saw the new proposed footpath as much better than the existing one. (The principle of public land they passed over.) Cllr Mike Edwards moved approval and Cllr Davies seconded, adding endorsements about seaside aesthetics, and suggesting there were guarantees when there are not.

(Meanwhile Cllr Judy Rogers of the Foreshore Trust and HBC Cabinet was seen to be nodding vigorously, as the role of the Foreshore Trust was underplayed, even ignored.)

A night to regret

No sooner was the Pier ice-cream shed granted retrospective permission than it was in breach of itself.  A complaint was lodged that it did not comply with the approved plans (condition 2) of the two applications.   The current ice-cream shed has windows on two sides, but the permission is for windowless sheds.   This was pointed out to HBC planning department in October 2018.   The planners and the applicants never put this right, having little interest in detail.

For this observer, the only two to emerge from the meeting with any credit were Cllr Scott, who said ‘sheds are sheds’ and voted against, and Cllr Louise, who objected to the abandonment of public space for private profit. (The manner of that abandonment also drew comment, in ‘noises off’.)  Cllr Scott also noted that the Conservation Management Plan for the pier was not compulsory, meaning there was no maintenance plan for the five sheds.

Reportedly the pathway is to be kept open, for the present. There is no longer a mechanism to ensure that however, because the Foreshore Trust did nothing to protect it.

Even by HBC standards this was a low evening.  The benefits alleged were very hard to see.

Also in: Home Ground

« More hold-ups for HoH’s Ore Valley housing scheme
Residents’ voice still ignored as bathing pool site plans advance »