Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

HS/FA/14/00832 | Construction of a new road linking Sedlescombe Road North (A21) with Queensway (B2092) | Proposed Queensway Gateway Road (land between Queensway and Sedlescombe Road North),St Leonards-on-sea
  • Total Consulted: 861
  • Comments Received: 824
  • Objections: 811
  • Supporting: 8
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 824|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

Mr David Dewis

Comment submitted date: Mon 14 Dec 2015

As somebody who lives just off the Ridge, There is a great demand for this road and an ever greater need. The current layout will dump all link road traffic onto the ridge with no easy road to get down onto the A21. The Roads currently linking to the A21 are already well over capacity. My concern is that much of the opposition comes from people who will not be affected by the increase of traffic. I hope that these people will not be able to sway a decision that will affect everyone that lives on the ridge and its surrounding roads.

Mr Martin Newbold

Comment submitted date: Fri 02 Oct 2015

Please see documents tab.

Comment submitted date: Fri 20 Nov 2015

Please see documents tab.

Comment submitted date: Sat 21 Nov 2015

Please note I am commenting on this Application to show the date of my last letter emailed today as it appears that the Pubic listing of documents is not being maintained correctly. Unfortunately this does not stand up to Public Scrutiny when the documents are not being presented on the tab on the date they come in. I strongly object to this Application and this Procedure error which does not allow the public to respond being confused as to whether a document was available before another.

Comment submitted date: Tue 08 Dec 2015

I wish to object to the above planning application for the following reasons:



1) Council policy DM6 states that Planning permission will only be granted for the development provided.



2) In addition I have provided information to Acting Development Manager Mr. Batchelor in relation to the Planning Case Officer not being contactable during this Planning Consultation. His comment was not helpful.



3) SUDS have not been provided with enough time from their first notification to make an argument for or against.

4) The Air Pollution report has changed decreasing the area of land been sampled thus reducing the emission figures No real figures from the local area have been obtained.



5) The public comments are not being listed correctly on Planning website allowing a democratically elected Planning Committee to view all of the Public responses or the Public to view them. Two files have been sent to Acting Development Manager and full council showing the taciturn substituted by Planning Department instead of the actual public comment, which appears to be omitted from this Planning website and not in public domain.



None of these points have been listed in Planners Report to Council.

Comment submitted date: Fri 11 Dec 2015

I have patiently waited for my documents sent in to come online on your Development Management Planning website and Planning Portal .



They have not appeared on this site even my letter dated 9th December 2015. I have printed copies of the website today at 6:22pm at which time no more comments can be added by the Public or anyone else. It is apparent the text data entry failures still exist and that data is still missing as described to you in my last correspondence.

I have also not received response to this letter of complaint and emails. I also note I can still add comment to this Planning Application despite your email dated Wed Dec 9th, 2015 at 2:06PM stating:

?? This remains true and as such there is no need to appoint a new case officer or extend the consultation period?

As far as I can see all of your objection related to correspondence has been added to our website and your concerns have been considered as part of the recommendation of the committee. Any correspondence received following the publishing of the recommendation but before the deadline for final comments (which is Thursday at 3:00pm) will be given to the committee members on the day of the Planning Committee.?

It is clear from the correspondence documents on this site that some are addressed to Mr. Samuel Batchelor, Case Officer. It is apparent that one example of this is the letter from Natural England sent to Samuel Bachelor Case Officer. It should be noted that the communication is not from the local regional team and is at another location It can be concluded from this that it is unlikely that this person has ever been anywhere near the site and would not have qualification to make wildlife statements and therefore is incapable of making an assessment on the impact to the Wildlife on this site. I understand a letter of complaint is to be written in regard to this to Area manager Mr. James Seymour.

As it appears the Acting Development Manager are taking on two roles in the respect of Acting Development Manager and Case Officer as your telephone contact details are next to the Case officer?s name on the report. I would like to know how you are going to handle my complaint. As the manager it is known cannot make, un-biased decision about yourself. This will give a further problem in regard to the stages of your complaint process.

It appears comments can still be made on this Application after the deadline date. I would be grateful if you can explain why this Application has not been closed as you indicated in your email dated: Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:06PM

I note your email dated Wed, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:35pm states ?It appears you were viewing the website as the comments were being added. During this time there can be a short delay between the name of the commenter being added on the comments tab (where it says ?please see documents tab?) and their comment actually appearing on the documents tab. I can confirm that the comments you thought were missing are now available to view.?. I need to point out to you I have rechecked this information and these documents on the document tab are still missing

I note your email Wed, Dec 10, 2015 at 5:47 PM in which you state : ?Further to your email to my colleague Mrs Stapley. I have the following comments:

Mrs Stapley has previously explained to you why comments appear on our website in the way that they currently do. She has also explained that we hope to be able to display them differently when we upgrade to version 2 of Public Access soon. The Public Access software is provided by the IDOX Group who maintains copyright over the site?s design and software. We therefore cannot make changes you seem to consider are so easy.

We have accepted that data entry errors can occur and when we are notified about these we correct them as quickly as possible but otherwise, to the best of our knowledge, the information contained on Public Access for planning applications is up-to-date.

Given the above I do not consider it appropriate to suspend the determination of planning applications as there is no fault.?

I have already explained at length these errors are not related to any software bug, my wealth of experience providing software to the Council outweighs your own knowledge here. Your upgrade will not change the keyed errors. These need to be done by either downloading the database or running a program on it to split records or to manually re-key the records. Further to this point your data in this application is not Up-to-date.

On Friday, 11/11/2015 1:21 PM (7 hours ago

You wrote to me informing me that 1) you had been told that Mrs. Bahcelli had tried to contact me on three occasions and that the issues I had raised had been resolved and that the Application was up-to-date

On Friday, 11/11/2015 7:46 PM (1 hour ago) I wrote

I have checked the documents from the comments tab of the cases I have notified you about . Yes you are now correct the items i notified you individually about have been updated and now exist.

However you have not grasped the fact that these cases are not the only cases of this issues i have described on your Planning system(Planning Portal) Correcting just the items I point out to you does not constitute you looking at this matter properly.

I understand that you have been telling Councilors that your system is now up-to-date and now working correctly so that you can view all documents which have been submitted.



Why then the first record I try is there no document in the document tab .



Again this name 'Ms Voya Hare' was searched for on the document tab. The red highlight indicates that the record is not found and that there is missing documents. There are many more. We are we all being told the Planning Portal is up-to-date for this Application. When clearly it is not this is totally not true that it is up-to-date. It is clear information is being withheld from the public. This is now the third time I have asked the same question, which is falling on deaf ears. I have offered to show anyone this in person so that they can look with their own eyes and the response has been no! We have been in communication with Mr Sam Batchelor.

This is blatantly ridiculous that your department is not attending to this and stating you are . Can you please tell me why you are providing these Public Responses online as it is clear that this is not transparent and it is clear that the requirements set out under Planning Regulation are not being met. I was told this afternoon by a member of the Planning Committee this is not a Planning Consideration and that this Planning Application was being handled transparently.



It is still apparent that Objections are being withheld being not placed in the Public Domain. I was told by a local Planning Committee member that this did not matter as all the Responses would be available in the committee room for the Planning Committee to observe. It is clearly the case that these documents will be before the Planning Committee and available to the Planning Committee and not transparently available for view by the Public. It would appear these documents a being withheld from the public.

Can you explain why the Public is being excluded from viewing these documents? Can you tell me why no complaint has been registered despite being made. Can you tell me why you will not look with your own eyes and see this for yourself?

We are not being told the truth. The Development Manager clearly has no IT skills and should not be making this sort of recommendation to the Planning Committee members as he is not qualified in IT.

I cannot understand how it is transparent to have responses from the public in a committee room before the hearing which are not available to be viewed by the public.

I am appalled at the lack of professionalism showed here. All of these letters were sent to all Councilors I believe this is a disgrace and a scandal. There has been no response save from the Acting Development Manager.

I would point out anyone can check this for themselves. Select a name from the comments tab with a comment that the response is on the documents tab. Then switch to the Document Tab and press Ctrl + F to open find on page. Paste in this name with Ctrl+ V into this search window and search you will find in some occasions the document is missing. I hope this clarifies.

Mr Benjamin Diss

Comment submitted date: Fri 24 Oct 2014

Dear Madam Sir,

I have visited the wildlife rich area which will be destroyed by the proposed gateway road on a number of occasions and I can attest to its beauty and public utility.



With the above in mind, may I draw your attention to your own document: Hastings Local Plan Policy NC6: Sites of Nature Conservation Importance:

'Development proposals within or adjacent to Sites of Nature Conservation Importance will not be permitted unless there is a local need which outweighs any harm to the nature conservation interest.'



The proposed road runs through the middle of the Hollington Valley SNCI and therefore should not be permitted unless 'there is a local need which outweighs any harm to the nature conservation interest.'



I do not accept that this is the case. In terms of traffic congestion, the transport assessment of the proposed road shows that predicted congestion in both 2016 and 2018 is worse at almost every junction with the road, than without. In terms of jobs, Sea Change already has two sites in Hastings (North Queensway and Queensway South) which have a surplus of industrial development land above and beyond what the local market requires, Sea Change also have a huge development site in Bexhill. It cannot be the case therefore that additional space is required for such land use, when existing such sites cannot be filled.



Under The National Planning Policy Framework, Chapter 9, paragraph 118: When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:



If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.



Driving a road through the middle of the Hollington Valley SNCI cannot but result in significant harm to the site. Since it is a relatively small site, and will be split in two by the proposed road, 'significant harm' cannot be avoided and given my own extensive experience of wildlife management, I do not believe it possible to mitigate or compensate for the harm to be caused.



Hollington Valley SNCI is described in its designation report as an 'invaluable and irreplaceable habitat of excellent quality and an asset for the people of Hastings to enjoy.' Please reject this planning application and allow Hollington Valley to remain a place for people and nature.

Yours faithfully,

Benjamin Diss.

Comment submitted date: Sat 26 Sep 2015

Dear Madam/Sir,

Since planning permission was quashed on the basis of the local air pollution which will result from the building of the road, I fail to see how the revised application can be any different in this respect. I am concerned that figures will be fudged in order to steam roller the application through. Given that recent news events have taught us that vehicle emissions are far higher than official figures, this is no time to build a new road, which will drive traffic growth and further increase air pollution.



I object strongly to this abuse of public land. Hollington valley provides great utility to local people and since the land adjacent to the playing fields off the Ridgeway looks to be lost to development, I feel that this emphasises the importance of Hollington Valley to recreational users and wildlife alike.



The council's clear intent is not only to build the road but to develop industrial units along it. Given the number of vacant industrial units in the Hastings-Bexhill area, and the undeveloped SeaChange site on Queensway, this seems at best short-sighted and at worst reckless.

Yours,

Benjamin Diss

Comment submitted date: Thu 10 Dec 2015

Dear Madam/Sir,

I am concerned that the planning committee looks set to rubber stamp the proposal HS/FA/14/00832, at the forthcoming planning meeting and that the committee has yet to adequately consider the impacts which the proposed development will have. This, especially bearing in mind a number of the council's own policies and objectives which will be breached, should the development go ahead.



One cannot fail to see that the appearance and character of the Hollington valley will be substantially negatively impacted by transforming this wildlife haven and amenity for local residents into an industrial landscape. This at a time when there are significan empty industrial units around hastings and St. Leonards.



The new road will inevitably generate increased traffic and congestion in the area, something which councillors have a duty to consider. For a good explanation of why and how building new roads increases traffic, including data and references. See here:

http://www.citymetric.com/transport/does-building-more-roads-create-more-traffic-934



Even putting congestion aside. The new road will have a broader environmental impact, bearing in mind habitat destruction, local noise and air pollution. The latter is extremely likely to breach legal levels, air pollution kills at least 29,000 people a year in the UK, just from particulates, that does not include nitrogen oxides and other chemicals.



For these reasons, I urge councillors to decline planning permission when the matter is considered on 15th Dec.

Yours faithfully,

Benjamin Diss.

Mr Dominic Templeman

Comment submitted date: Mon 27 Oct 2014

At a time when leading climate scientists are warning that CO2 levels are at record highs, it is deeply irresponsible to encourage more driving and road-building.



Hollington Valley is a vital habitat for wildlife and these are being lost throughout the country. Destroying part of that for a business park shows a callous disregard for other life forms on the planet.



For once, please put higher principles before profit.

Comment submitted date: Tue 24 Nov 2015

Please see documents tab.

Comment submitted date: Thu 10 Dec 2015

At a time when Hastings Council should be striving to reduce emissions from vehicles, building this proposed Gateway road seems reprehensible.

Improving public transport links to and from the town should be the preferred option.

Ms Rosamond Palmer

Comment submitted date: Tue 28 Oct 2014

I object to the planning application for the following reasons:

1. Hastings Local Plan Policy NC6: Sites of Nature Conservation Importance

?Development proposals within or adjacent to Sites of Nature Conservation Importance will not be permitted unless there is a local need which outweighs any harm to the nature conservation interest.?



The proposed road runs through the middle of the Hollington Valley SNCI and therefore should not be permitted unless ?there is a local need which outweighs any harm to the nature conservation interest?.



I do not accept that there is the case. In terms of traffic congestion, the transport assessment of the proposed road shows that predicted congestion in both 2016 and 2018 is worse at almost every junction with the road, than without. In terms of jobs, Sea Change already has two sites in Hastings (North Queensway and Queensway South) which have a large amount of space unable to be filled, as well as the huge development site in Bexhill. It cannot be the case therefore that more space is needed for employment land, when existing such sites cannot be filled.



2. The National Planning Policy Framework:



Chapter 9, paragraph 118: When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:



If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.



Driving a road through the middle of the Hollington Valley SNCI cannot but result in significant harm to the site. Since it is a relatively small site, and will be split in two by the proposed road, ?significant harm? cannot be avoided and I do not believe it is possible to mitigate or compensate for the harm to be caused.



Hollington Valley SNCI is described in its designation report as an ?invaluable and irreplaceable habitat of excellent quality and an asset for the people of Hastings to enjoy?. Please reject this planning application and allow Hollington Valley to remain a place for people and nature.

Comment submitted date: Mon 30 Nov 2015

Proposed Queensway Gateway Road



I object to the proposed road for the following reasons:



Given the BHLR has already cost 120,000,000 for three miles of carriageway with a present overspend of 7,000,000, paid for by residents in East Sussex and it is still incomplete, who is going to pick up the tab if there is an overspend on the Queensway Gateway Road?



The original proposal, submitted by SeaChange failed to comply with E U regulations on emissions. SeaChange?s new proposal has changed nothing but a few figures and indeed in his letter dated 3. November 2015, John Shaw states ?the alignment of the road cannot be changed.? John Shaw states that ?an extensive review of the traffic assessment has demonstrated that there were a number of reasons why the original assessment significantly overstated the levels of traffic on the road network.?



These would appear to be:-



A 7% overestimation of annual average daily traffic.

An overestimation in the size of the proposed development.

An overestimation of car emissions.



That?s three sets of figures that SeaChange now say were flawed.



Usually if a company submits flawed information, the potential user is very sceptical that that company is up to the job. What other figures are flawed?



According to SeaChange, the financial figures for the Queensway Gateway Road are overestimated and they have applied to South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) with a revised budget ? SeaChange now think the project will be delivered for 6 million.?and a request to re-allocate the 9,000,000 surplus to the North Bexhill Access Road.



Instead of 15,000,000 it is now only 6,000,000. SeaChange?s track record shows they spent 1,5000,000 on a basic stretch of road just 50 metres long, off Queensway. Given that the Queensway Gateway Road is about 650 metres and will need lighting, drainage, pavements, signs and three roundabouts, is it likely that SeaChange over budgeted by nearly two thirds? Using these figures isn?t the true cost 13X 1,5000,000, making it 19,500,000.? Look at the overspend on the BHLR. These projects usually exceed the original budget, they don?t diminish.



According to SELEP ?Sea Change looking to re-allocate the 9m 'saving' to North Bexhill Access Rd.? It would appear that SeaChange are requesting a transfer of 9,000,000 from the government approved and funded Queensway Gateway Road to the North Bexhill Access Road. A Freedom of Information request to SELEP states that ?the business case for the scheme (North Bexhill Access Road) has not yet gone through the Independent Technical Evaluation process and the funding has not yet been guaranteed by the government.? It would appear that SeaChange are requesting transferring a huge amount of money from a government approved and funded scheme to one that isn?t.



As I see it, there are two possible reasons why SeaChange are stating that the financial budgeting for Queensway Gateway Road is so far array, either they got the figures wrong, in which case it shows incompetence or they want to rob Peter (Queensway Gateway Rd, HBC) to pay Paul (North Bexhill Access Road, RDC). Suppose the Queensway Gateway Road is approved and goes ahead and SELEP approves the reallocation of the ?saving? and transfers the funding to North Bexhill Access Road, when the diminished pot for the Queensway Gateway Road runs dry, will SeaChange tell us that their flawed figures weren?t flawed and hand us a bill for 9,000,000 or more?



Presumably Hastings Borough Council is keen to grant permission to increase revenue through new businesses paying rates and through the sale of land. However, SeaChange?s history of selling business units is very poor. Is it economical to embark on a project that could end up with HBC having to find more than has been gained?



Regardless of people?s political persuasion, surely it is morally wrong to back this project? In times of hardship we need to protect services rather than mismanage public money.

Comment submitted date: Thu 10 Dec 2015

I object to the proposed road for the following reasons:



The Hastings Planning Strategy, adopted February 2014 (Policy EN3) states :-



The town?s biodiversity and geological resources will be protected and enhanced.



In their latest proposal SeaChange states :-



10.5.40. The NOx critical level and nitrogen deposition critical load is predicted to be exceeded at all

distances from the QGR with the QGR and MHR open.



Table 10.25: Predicted Concentrations at Ecological Receptors in 2016 and MHR open (these are the least destructive figures) shows levels of nearly five times the critical load for NOx (Nitrous Oxides)if the road is built through Hollington Valley.



I refer to Policy NH8 Biodiversity and Green Space :-



Development should result in no net loss of biodiversity or designated green spaces?. Development that would affect a designated site will only be permitted where there is an adverse impact on ecological, geological or biodiversity interests of the site if it can be demonstrated that :



The need for development would outweigh the nature conservation interests;



Adverse impacts can be satisfactorily minimised through mitigation and compensation levels.



I suggest no amount of mitigation will offer protection to animals and plant life with this concentration of toxin.

Dr Susan Drawbridge

Comment submitted date: Mon 03 Nov 2014

I object to the planning application for the following reasons:

1. Hastings Local Plan Policy NC6: Sites of Nature Conservation Importance

?Development proposals within or adjacent to Sites of Nature Conservation Importance will not be permitted unless there is a local need which outweighs any harm to the nature conservation interest.?



The proposed road runs through the middle of the Hollington Valley SNCI and therefore should not be permitted unless ?there is a local need which outweighs any harm to the nature conservation interest?.



I do not accept that there is the case. In terms of traffic congestion, the transport assessment of the proposed road shows that predicted congestion in both 2016 and 2018 is worse at almost every junction with the road, than without. In terms of jobs, Sea Change already has two sites in Hastings (North Queensway and Queensway South) which have a large amount of space unable to be filled, as well as the huge development site in Bexhill. It cannot be the case therefore that more space is needed for employment land, when existing such sites cannot be filled.



2. The National Planning Policy Framework:



Chapter 9, paragraph 118: When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:



If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.



Driving a road through the middle of the Hollington Valley SNCI cannot but result in significant harm to the site. Since it is a relatively small site, and will be split in two by the proposed road, ?significant harm? cannot be avoided and I do not believe it is possible to mitigate or compensate for the harm to be caused.



Hollington Valley SNCI is described in its designation report as an ?invaluable and irreplaceable habitat of excellent quality and an asset for the people of Hastings to enjoy?. Please reject this planning application and allow Hollington Valley to remain a place for people and nature.

Comment submitted date: Fri 16 Oct 2015

Draft objection



I wish to object to the above planning application for the following reason:



Council policy DM6 states that ?Planning permission will only be granted for the development provided? the level of airborne pollutants caused by the proposed development does not exceed statutory guidelines, unless appropriate mitigation measures are agreed.



SeaChange?s figures showed clearly that, if built, air pollution from the Queensway Gateway road would exceed statutory limits. SeaChange failed to offer any mitigation strategy. In addition, the most recent report from environmental consultants Accon states that: ?It should be noted that the implementation of [mitigation measures] would not guarantee that the Limit Values were not exceeded?.



Hastings Council is obliged not to take steps which would result in breaches of air pollution legislation, therefore the only possible option is to refuse this planning application. This would help to avoid the harmful effects of air pollution and prevent air pollution levels exceeding prescribed limits which are dangerous for health and can result in premature death.

Comment submitted date: Thu 10 Dec 2015

I wish to object to the above planning application for the Queensway Gateway road because:



1) SeaChange?s revised air quality assessment shows that the proposal will cause breaches of permitted air pollution levels in the Hollington Valley local wildlife site;



2) There is no local or regional need for the development proposed when the council and the developer are unable to fill empty business parks (North Queensway, Enviro 21) already built and permitted nearby;



3) The proposed road will cause an unnecessary increase in traffic by encouraging road transport when the council should be taking urgent action to reduce this;



4) The Council must urgently provide ways of repairing the considerable environmental harm that has already been caused by this unnecessary proposal and take steps to improve the wildlife and biodiversity of the area rather than make it worse.

Ms Andrea Needham

Comment submitted date: Tue 04 Nov 2014

I object very strongly to this planning application and ask HBC to reject it.



The stated purpose of the road is to 'open up' areas for business parks. The area to be 'opened up' is the Hollington Valley SNCI, described in its designation report (http://tinyurl.com/nx5jva2) as 'one of the best wildlife habitats within the borough'.



The proposed road breaches Hastings Local Plan Policy NC6: Sites of Nature Conservation Importance, which states that, 'Development proposals within or adjacent to Sites of Nature Conservation Importance will not be permitted unless there is a local need which outweighs any harm to the nature conservation interest.?



The 'local need' is said to be the need for jobs. However, the applicant, SeaChange, already has two business parks a very short distance away (on Queensway) which it appears unable to fill (see http://tinyurl.com/n4lwjtq). SeaChange has not put any evidence into the planning application that further business parks are needed at a time when it cannot fill the ones it already has.



Further, SeaChange's 'Transport Assessment' document shows that far from reducing traffic congestion, the proposed road would actually increase the delay at most junctions.



Under these circumstances it cannot possibly be said that there is a 'local need which outweighs any harm to the nature conservation interest', and HBC must therefore refuse the application.

Comment submitted date: Tue 06 Jan 2015

Dear Mr BatchelorRe: HS/FA/14/00832, Queensway Gateway road
I understand you are the planning officer in this case. I have a few questions which perhaps you could answer:1. Do you know when the planning application will be heard by the planning committee?2. When will your report for the committee be publicly available?3. As you are no doubt aware, there have been nearly 250 comments on this application, all of them objections. Many have raised the issue of Hastings Local Plan Policy NC6, which states that 'Development proposals within or adjacent to Sites of Nature Conservation Importance will not be permitted unless there is a local need which outweighs any harm to the nature conservation interest.'I am aware that the area is designated as employment space in the local plan, however cannot see how the 'local need' could be said to outweigh the huge harm that would be caused by allowing the application (according to Murray Davidson, the proposed road and associated business park would have a 'significant and adverse impact on the entire northern part of the Local Wildlife Site', such that it is likely to be 'rendered unviable as a biodiversity area'). Whilst there is clearly a local need for jobs, there are already two very similar sites (from the same developer, SeaChange Sussex) within a stone's throw of this proposed site. The first one, Enviro 21, had planning permission for 8 units; only a few were ever built and the rest of the land is now for sale. The other, North Queensway, is standing empty and completely undeveloped, because no occupiers can be found. If these sites cannot be filled, how can it be claimed that there is a 'local need' for another one, which would completely destroy a local wildlife site? Will this be reflected in your report to the committee?I would be very grateful if you could answer these questions. I don't have a great knowledge of planning law but cannot see how a new site can be justified when SeaChange is unable to fill the ones it has already built.Many thanksAndrea Needham

Comment submitted date: Mon 28 Sep 2015

Please see documents tab.

Comment submitted date: Thu 10 Dec 2015

Please see documents tab.

Ms Erica Smith

Comment submitted date: Wed 05 Nov 2014

I object to the planning application for the following reasons:

1. Hastings Local Plan Policy NC6: Sites of Nature Conservation Importance

?Development proposals within or adjacent to Sites of Nature Conservation Importance will not be permitted unless there is a local need which outweighs any harm to the nature conservation interest.?



The proposed road runs through the middle of the Hollington Valley SNCI and therefore should not be permitted unless ?there is a local need which outweighs any harm to the nature conservation interest?.



I do not accept that there is the case. In terms of traffic congestion, the transport assessment of the proposed road shows that predicted congestion in both 2016 and 2018 is worse at almost every junction with the road, than without. In terms of jobs, Sea Change already has two sites in Hastings (North Queensway and Queensway South) which have a large amount of space unable to be filled, as well as the huge development site in Bexhill. It cannot be the case therefore that more space is needed for employment land, when existing such sites cannot be filled.



2. The National Planning Policy Framework:



Chapter 9, paragraph 118: When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:



If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.



Driving a road through the middle of the Hollington Valley SNCI cannot but result in significant harm to the site. Since it is a relatively small site, and will be split in two by the proposed road, ?significant harm? cannot be avoided and I do not believe it is possible to mitigate or compensate for the harm to be caused.



Hollington Valley SNCI is described in its designation report as an ?invaluable and irreplaceable habitat of excellent quality and an asset for the people of Hastings to enjoy?. Please reject this planning application and allow Hollington Valley to remain a place for people and nature.

Comment submitted date: Mon 30 Nov 2015

Please see documents tab.

Comment submitted date: Thu 10 Dec 2015

I wish to object to the above planning application for the following reasons:



Council policy DM6 of the Development Management Plan states that 'Planning permission will only be granted for the development provided?.the level of airborne pollutants caused by the proposed development does not exceed statutory guidelines, unless appropriate mitigation measures are agreed'.

SeaChange's revised figures show clearly that, if the QGR is built, air pollution at ecological receptors would exceed statutory limits ('The NOx critical level and nitrogen deposition critical load is predicted to be exceeded at all distances from the QGR with the proposed development in place' ? revised air quality report, Nov 2015). The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 (regulation 22, schedule 6) state that the calendar limit value for NOx must not exceed 30g/m3. The applicant's evidence shows that this limit would be exceeded at all points up to 200m from the QGR. John Shaw, Director of SeaChange, has admitted in a letter to HBC's planning department (3 November) that there are no effective methods by which the air pollution could be mitigated.



Policy EN6 in the Hastings Planning Strategy states that 'Development proposals within or adjacent to Local Wildlife Sites will only be permitted where there is a local need which outweighs any harm to the nature conservation interest.' The QGR would be built on top of Hollington Valley Local Wildlife Site. The supposed 'local need' is for another SeaChange business park. However, SeaChange is unable to fill the extensive business parks (North Queensway, Enviro 21) it has already built nearby, so it cannot possibly be said that there is a local need for more.

Mrs Frances Royston

Comment submitted date: Thu 10 Dec 2015

1.Sea Change's revised Air Quality Assessment shows that the proposal will cause breaches of permitted air pollution levels in the Hollington Valley local wildlife site.



2. There is no local or regional need for the development proposed when the council and the developer are unable to fill empty business parks (North Queensway, Enviro 21) already built and permitted nearby.



3. The proposed road will cause an unnecessary increase in traffic by encouraging road transport when the council should be taking urgent action to reduce this.



4. The council must urgently provide ways of repairing the considerable environmental harm that has already been caused by this unnecessary proposal and take steps to improve the wildlife and biodiversity of the area rather than make it worse.

Mr Donald Wise

Comment submitted date: Mon 07 Dec 2015

I am in receipt of a letter dated 1st December 2015 from Mrs Tezel Bahcheli. It is written here in this signed letter "You are correct in noting that I am not an employee of Hastings Borough Council. I am an independent Planning Consultant instructed to act for the Council on the Rocklands planning matters."

It is clear from this Planning Matter HS/FA/14/00835 that the Case Officer is listed as T Bahcheli. The letter Clearly states this is not the case. I believe therefore there has been no Case Officer that cannot be approached or contacted for this Application during the Public Hearing of the Application. It is clear therefore this Application has not been legal prepared. This Application should therefore be refused as the legal preparation of this Application to be heard does not conform to the Town and Country Planning Act.

Comment submitted date: Thu 10 Dec 2015

Please see documents tab.

Showing 1-10 of 824|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

an Idox solution