St Anne’s to be demolished despite committee’s decision

No sooner had proposals to redevelop St Anne’s church in Hollington been refused than there was an application to demolish it anyway. Hastings Borough Council (HBC) approved it in a delegated decision by planning officers. Bernard McGinley reports.

The proposal to replace St Anne’s church with five pinched houses was refused by the Planning Committee on 28 September (case HS/FA/22/00028). The grounds were:

1. harm to the character and appearance of the area
2. effect on access to the public pavement
3. loss of the community facility, and
4. loss of a building of local architectural and communal significance.

There was no appeal. Just over two weeks later, the application form for the new proposal (HS/DM/22/00835) stated on p4 ‘the reasons why demolition needs to take place’ as:

To facilitate redevelopment of the site for housing. 

and goes on to state that redevelopment or rebuilding is proposed afterwards. 

This is unsatisfactory and brings ‘Permitted Development Rights’ (‘PDR’) into disrepute, and planning procedure in general. The application form stated that the demolition would be over before it had begun. Separately the case was said to be under different parts of different General Permitted Development Orders (GPDOs).

The confusion was marked, and the appearance of an invalid application strong. Did HBC planning department pause the application to sort all this out? Of course not.

Heritage asset

In the September case, the Council’s Conservation Officer was clear about the building’s non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) status:

The church should therefore be regarded as a non-designated heritage asset and a material consideration in any planning decision. We should also ascribe value to it as a potential listed building for the future.

The Decision letter of 15 November on the subsequent case does not mention this.

Pevsner

St Anne’s is impressive enough to be mentioned in the authoritative architectural guide, Pevsner (The Buildings of England: Sussex East). The entry says:

ST ANNE. Chambers Road, Hollington.  1956 by J L Denman & Son. Brick and flint and still in the Arts and Crafts tradition. The tower, with pyramid roof, is curved to W and E. The nave has projecting window bays which break through the eaves to gabled and hipped dormers, Interior with pointed tunnel-vault.

The Denman family, Brighton-based, is the subject of increasing interest. The entry misses that the windows of St Anne’s are also of interest. The glasswork is attributed to Marjorie May Incledon (1891-1973), also a painter, who worked in Sussex (and was a cousin of JRR Tolkien).

Article 4

The 20th Century Society objected. So too did Historic Buildings & Places (HB&P), formerly the Ancient Monuments Society. Both advocated Article 4 Direction: if adopted that would have refused the demolition rights here unreasonably asserted. It would have reinstated the requirement for planning permission for demolition.

Additionally a Building Protection Notice could have been imposed by the Council to give it more time to seek listing and therefore consider Listed Building Consent. 

Under a reform that came in in August 2020, ‘Permitted Development Rights’ are deemed to exist in certain circumstances. Procedural so-called thoroughness requires that 

Site notices, neighbour notifications and consultation of certain third parties are required, giving the opportunity for representations to be made which must be taken into account.

How are they therefore taken into account?  Despite the public notice, there is no public consultation. The Decision letter does not mention St Anne’s as a heritage asset. Nor does it mention any ‘proposed restoration’ of the site — the only other matter in the case to consider apart from the method of demolition, according to the Council.

The case cannot go to Planning Committee (again according to the Council), whose previous decision counts for nothing. This is smelly, and disregards the HBC Constitution.

The ‘delegated authority report’ (as there’s no committee report) admits that the site notice cited the wrong GPDO and the wrong part of the GPDO (Part 11 from 2015, not Part 31 from 1995), then airily indicates that it doesn’t matter. But if it doesn’t matter, what is the point of these regs? Or if they can be disregarded, let them be temporarily disregarded. The Council has the authority to make an Article 4 direction. That would restrict the scope of ‘Permitted Development Rights’, or otherwise limit the range of such rights. The delegated report does not comment on Article 4, nor of course does the Decision letter. Similarly the delegated report does not mention the building’s heritage asset status.  

The planners allege that 

comments were fully considered and after closely examining all aspects of this application it has been decided that prior approval of the development is required and is given

but internal evidence suggests otherwise: that it was the old Alice in Wonderland decision-making style of ‘Sentence first and verdict afterwards’.  

One objection was subjected to censorship by the Council. The published version read:

Allegations that the Constitution prevents the case from being considered by the Planning Committee are false. Proceeding on a delegated basis would be a shabby and ■■■■■■■■■■ [proposed] use of delegated powers.

The suppressed word was scandalous.  

 

Inconsistency and arbitrariness

Councillors of all parties were understood to be seeking ways of saving the church (which had become a gym in recent years).  The officers’ line on ‘PDR’ seems to have prevailed, but without explanation.

There is a public notice in Chambers Road but public comment/consultation was not allowed or therefore considered.

Although planning permission for the site was refused, the owner can promptly and successfully submit a demolition notice that says ‘demolition needs [sic] to take place’ ‘to facilitate redevelopment of the site for housing’. There is no related proposal however. (Apparently the new development cannot exceed the footprint of the old building, but that might change.)

In its first Decision letter, refusing the application, HBC wrote:

loss of the heritage asset has not been clearly or convincingly justified. 

It still hasn’t, and the subsequent process disrespects a community and a community asset.

The demolition is scheduled for February 2023. The much admired Incledon window is going to the Church-in-the-Wood, which founded St Anne’s. That is little consolation to Chambers Road.

The lack of accountability has been scandalous.  The planning system is ■■■■■■■■■■, and in a bad way.   

 

Also in: Home Ground

« ESCC scrutiny committee puts Sea Change on its agenda
Sea Change claims ignorance of QGR budget change »