Rocklands: Grounds for FoI refusal shown to be untrue

Hastings Borough Council’s record in dealing with the Bunker in Rocklands caravan park is not one to be proud of, involving as it does years of evasion and failure to engage with complaints. Now it is claiming the non-existence of documents that tangibly exist, as Chris Hurrell of Save Ecclesbourne Glen makes clear.

Rocklands’ holiday let building (known as the Bunker) has been controversial for years. In 2015 it was ordered to be demolished by a unanimous decision of HBC Planning Committee, and later again was the subject of a decision by the Planning Inspector on what could stay built. 

Rocklands has since proceeded to ignore the Inspectorate’s conditions in many ways, including building a balcony extension facing East Hill. When this was reported to HBC in March 2020, the Council wrote to Rocklands. Eventually the balcony extension was removed and a retrospective planning application made (HS/FA/20/00470) to vary condition 2 of a strongly contested Appeal. The HBC Planning Committee next meets on 18 November but the application is not on the agenda. It then meets on 2 December.

Responses

In response to a recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request about correspondence on the planning application and the enforcement enquiry alongside, HBC wrote on 3 November: 

“Hastings Borough Council holds no correspondence concerning the unauthorised extended balcony and its subsequent removal.”

This is a false claim, as can easily be shown. The enforcement enquiry (ENF/20/00076) generated correspondence, as did the planning application. There are at least six HBC documents that refer to correspondence between HBC and Rocklands in this matter:  emails of 8 April, 16 May (twice), 25 May, and letters of 10 June and 11 June, with variations on the lines of ‘I have already written to the property Owner regarding the balcony inconsistencies’.

This is one such piece of correspondence:    

HBC added in its November FOI response:

There is no unauthorised extended balcony, we believe the owners did temporarily extend one of the balconies and then reverted it back to the approved size.”

The balcony has not been measured, so the assertion is dubious. It’s not likely that the owners would extend the balcony ‘temporarily’.  Perhaps contact from HBC enforcement following reports to them by the Save Ecclesbourne Glen group (SEG) had something to do with the ‘reverting’.    

The balcony extension cannot be classed as a ‘temporary’ structure as it was fixed to the property. (What is the point of a ‘temporary’ balcony on a building that is not occupied?) This constitutes a breach in planning control against the formal decision of the Inspector. What is the Council’s response? 

Another administrative hiccup

The Council officer dealing with the enforcement matter left HBC suddenly in the summer. In September the enquiry was ‘suspended’, until a decision is made on the application. The enquiry of course was to ascertain the issues relating to the application, so that the decision on it would be an informed one. An enforcement enquiry is pointless after the decision is made. The situation gives the appearance of facilitating the development at Rocklands, which is a form of predetermination or bias.

A different excuse

A different FOI request for the enforcement enquiry file met with the contradictory response that it was being refused because the documents related to the ‘course of justice’, under Environmental Information Regulation 12(5)(b).  

Even Regulation 12(5)(b) is untenable as the Council has not shown that disclosure of the documents would have a negative effect on ‘…the ability of a public authority to conduct an enquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature’. ICO guidance is very clear that it is not enough to suppose that release of the information only might have such an effect:

9 . . . the threshold for establishing adverse effect is a high one, since it is necessary to establish that disclosure would have an adverse effect.

‘Not recorded information’

Given the sustained objections about the balcony width and other problems of the site (such as the unauthorised retaining wall and damage to the Scheduled Ancient Monument), a site visit by committee members would seem advisable but none is known to be planned. The balcony has been inspected ‘visually’ by officers and is said to be ‘2 metres’ deep — though it may well be more. (The Inspector stipulated a maximum depth of two metres.) Against good practice, there is no note or photograph of the balcony. Even more bizarrely, the two metres is said by the planning department to be ‘not recorded information’.

The online file has the case papers and a number of objections. Comments on application HS/FA/20/00470 can still be made by email to dccomments@hastings.gov.uk or directly to the file:

In the Through the Looking-Glass world of HBC, evidence from the public is treated as non-evidence — not read and not considered, not believed and not acted on.  Contrariwise (as Tweedledee would say), non-evidence is treated as evidence. When Rocklands were asked to provide proof about works at the Bunker’s retaining wall, they didn’t (or couldn’t) — but made assertions that HBC readily accepted.

In contrast, submitted photographic proof that the assertions are false has been ignored.

The reputation of the Council’s planning department sinks steadily lower.  Accountability is near non-existent, and prospects of reform remote. This makes a mockery of the Council’s proclaimed policy of openness and transparency. How can reasonable standards of planning be restored? Will the Bunker application be properly assessed?

Also in: Home Ground

« An inside look at the Observer Building
Construction of Queensway Gateway Road resumes »