Tree protection fails

In Conquest Ward, on the east side of Silverhill Park, used to be Lower Ridge Farm. The site included the eastern end of Old Roar Road where it meets Ghyllside Avenue. The open spaces there acknowledge the area’s green field history. There used to be important trees there too. Bernard McGinley reports on more development. 

Planning application HS/FA/21/00774 was for a bungalow and parking at the junction of Old Roar Road and Ghyllside Avenue. In December 2021 the delegated decision (by Council officers) was for Refusal. The reasons included that 

a development as proposed would fail to have regard to the site’s context and the established pattern and character of development in the area, and would be an incongruous form of development that is out of keeping with, and harmful to the established visual and spatial character of the area, and appearing as an alien and incongruous development along the street, and at this prominent junction.

Persistence

The site has been under developmental siege for years. In 2014 HS/FA/14/00273 for a ‘chalet bungalow’ was refused. An appeal to the Planning Inspectorate was dismissed in March 2015, for reasons including

the proposal would unacceptably detract from the character and appearance of the area and . . .

Two years before that there was HS/FA/12/00459  for a new dwelling house there. The applicants’ tree statement (par 1.3) noted 15 trees on the site. The application was refused. According to a later Hastings Borough Council report, the Inspector in Appeal APP/B1415/A/12/2187502, decided that 

the new proposed dwelling would appear overly tall and would not integrate well with the existing streetscene as a consequence of the spatial relationship with the neighbouring properties, and the bulk, height and mass of the dwelling when compared with the existing property at 115 Ghyllside Avenue. In addition, the proposed dwelling was found to have an overbearing impact on the occupants of 182 Old Roar Road, unreasonably impacting their outlook. 

Six years ago, application HS/FA/17/00322 was for a bungalow with parking. The delegated report discusses the seven trees on site as an obstacle to development:

the proposal would likely result in pressure to reduce or remove the TPO [Tree Protection Order] trees nearest the dwelling. This would result in further harm to the character and appearance of the area and as such would be contrary to Policy DM1 as discussed above.

The loss of three trees was proposed. The proposed dwelling’s encroachment into the root protection area was acknowledged by the Council’s arboricultural officer but he still had no objections to the proposal, despite the grossly excessive damage done in a previous ‘crown reduction’ case (HS/TP/14/00175) that cleared the site of much of its foliage. (See the public comment in the case file.) The Council refused this bungalow case (for several reasons), under delegated powers. There was no appeal.

Pressure continues

Following the refusal of HS/FA/21/00774 (the first case above), in the summer of 2022 another application was made for the site, HS/FA/22/00493 for a two-storey dwelling, not a bungalow. 

The delegated report had lots about the site:  

the planning history shows that the site used to have a larger number of protected trees growing within it. However, a number of the trees appear to have been removed over the years. The Arboricultural Survey submitted by the applicant includes survey work on seven trees, three of which are located on adjoining plots. However, since the site was surveyed, three trees have reportedly been removed due to storm damage and safety concerns. 

Reportedly. Yet again the Council decided on Refusal. The number of objectors was understated, and there were many more objections than that. One letter of 18 August 2022 commented how

the land was sold by Hastings Borough Council purely as amenity land some 10 years ago. It is now a shadow of its former self and sad to see.

Appeal

The appeal (number 3300656) for the 2021 case (‘774’) was decided on 27 February 2023, in favour of the developer. The Planning Inspector’s decision readily found compliance in abundance. In para 6 he noted inaccurately

some Tree Protection Order (TPO) trees have been felled on health and safety grounds. 

Similarly he was dismissive (e.g.para 15) of concerns about plan inaccuracy. He wrote disingenuously (para 4) of 

the location of the appeal site on the end of a row of houses

without mentioning how this open space looks towards another open space on the north side of Old Roar Road (going up to Cedar Close), another vestige of the old farm.  He advocates 

a landscaping scheme and boundary treatment similar to neighbouring properties

without acknowledging the landscape. (It’s a little like saying that building over New York City’s Central Park wouldn’t affect the local pattern of development.)

Tree Protection Order

In 1960 the site was made the subject of a Tree Protection Area, TPO27, still supposedly in force. The recent case papers blandly mention in passing that the trees are gone:

it should be noticed that there was a tree or tree [sic] within the site which has a TPO but this was felled in past years.

But that explains nothing. Removal of TPO-protected trees still requires a TPO application (or planning permission) but such applications have been scarce, and enforcement action scarcer. Reasons for removal tend to be vague.   

Increasingly the Inspector seemed concerned with ‘a presumption in favour of sustainable development’.  Where  the Council as local planning authority cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing supply at a particular time, the ‘tilted balance’ of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (para 11d) is engaged. 

‘Tilted balance’ is where the Council (or application decider) moves from a neutral balance (where if the harms outweigh the benefits planning permission is usually withheld) to a different standard — where the harms should significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits for permission to be withheld.  A tilted balance could be a slippery slope.  Meanwhile a fine corner of Old Roar Road is being lost.    

 

Also in: Home Ground

« Can St Leonards’ landmark church be saved?
Affordable housing goes missing near the Ridge »