Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

HS/FA/14/00834 | Seafront retail kiosk | Kiosk, Upper Promenade Opposite Eversfield Place, Foreshore, Eversfield Place, St Leonards-on-sea
  • Total Consulted: 52
  • Comments Received: 24
  • Objections: 23
  • Supporting: 1

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 24|1|2|3|

Mrs Eve Montgomery

Comment submitted date: Tue 06 Jan 2015

I object to this application for the following reasons: 1) The design and location is not appropriate because it will detract from the Weather Station Kiosk which is a historic structure unique in our town. The proposed Seafront retail kiosk is a prominent structure over three metres high and its size will completely overshadow the Weather Station Kiosk. 2) There would be an increase in litter which would be hazardous, smelly and unsightly and encourage the seagulls to be a nuisance on the promenade. 3) The application states that the cycleway will be suspended for 17 metres and changed to mixed use ie shared with pedestrians. This is dangerous and the risks are greater here than on the mixed-use area near the Azur because pedestrians (especially children) leaving the Seafront retail kiosk will be focusing on their takeaway food and likely to be less aware of passing cyclists.

Mr Richard May

Comment submitted date: Tue 06 Jan 2015

I strongly object to this application.



The structure would completely spoil the beautiful open vista of the seafront here. Hastings has a beautiful unspoiled Promenade here which this unnecessary structure would ruin.



Furthermore closing the cycle path here is entirely irresponsible and dangerous and would force cyclists onto the busy A259 road. As a regular cyclist between Hastings and Eastbourne this would be a horrendously detrimental reversal of the improvements that are slowly being made.



All in all this is a terribly thought through plan.

Mr Duncan Hacon

Comment submitted date: Tue 06 Jan 2015

Your list of Consultees states that Hastings Urban Bikes (HUB) has been consulted. HUB has not been consulted on this specific planning application and we therefore request that we be specifically consulted and your planning meeting be delayed for 3 months to give us opportunity to look at the planning application.

The email HUB received in July 2014 related to a Pre Application Consultation only. Failure to consult HUB is a breach of Planning Process.

Duncan Hacon

HUB Secretary

Mr David Young

Comment submitted date: Tue 06 Jan 2015

Sustrans objects to the proposed severance of National Cycle Route 2 at this location without provision for an equally or better, traffic free alternative.



This is a very popular Cycle Route for locals, day trippers and tourists and an established attraction. Sustrans undertook Fieldwork: July/August 2010 and July/August 2012 -



"The total number of route users counted over the four day survey period was 2,205. Based on this we would estimate that the current annual usage estimate at Hastings is 184,897. It is estimated that 85,699 users will be cyclists, 85,252 pedestrians and 13,946 other types of

route users."



Safety is an important consideration and proposed severance of National Cycle Route 2 is likely to result in confusion/conflict for all users including walkers and cyclists.



David Young - Sustrans.

Mrs Susan Burton

Comment submitted date: Tue 06 Jan 2015

I object to this planning application if it means that the cycle way is lost. This is a very well used route and will continue to be as more and more become aware of the health benefits of cycling. It is part of a comuter route between Bexhill and Hastings. It is one of the few local traffic free routes where beginner and nervous riders can ride.

I cannot see that what is proposed is practical or safe. The cyclist will follow the cycleway and then suddenly it stops . Where does the cyclist go then ? They will have to continue but with great risk of having a colison with somebody.

Mr Bill Montgomery

Comment submitted date: Tue 06 Jan 2015

I cannot object strongly enough to this ill thought out, unnecessary and ugly scheme. Not content with affronting the clean lines of our promenade and insulting the charming weather kiosk, it also manages to sever the cycle route in a dangerous manner. And for what? So that more fast food can be offered up to continue sabotaging the health of our residents. It beggars belief that the council would rather erect a hideous hut in a terrible position instead of using every opportunity to continue regenerating the down at heel existing shops. This proposal is simple vandalism and will have no positive effects at all.

Mr Yok Chang

Comment submitted date: Mon 05 Jan 2015

The kiosk will spoil the openness and appeal of the promenade. There are many other places close by that serve snacks and drinks, including the beach cafe on the lower promenade, as well as many empty/ struggling cafes opposite the proposed site. The pier will provide even more retail outlet opportunities. The appeal of this section of the seafront is that it is open and unspoiled. Please do not kill the main attraction of this area for something that will provide so little added value.

Mr Benjamin Hunt

Comment submitted date: Mon 05 Jan 2015

I object on the grounds of;



- increase litter that will be produced

- the walk way and cycle way will be distrupted with additional people

- the kiosk will be an eyesore

- there are plenty of places available to get drinks food etc and there is no need for additional kiosk that will have negative affect on the local environment.

- the look and feel of the coastline should be preserved as much as possible

Ms Anita Platzer

Comment submitted date: Sat 20 Dec 2014

Complete Objection:

Reasons:

1. Health and Safety - if there are only 1 or 2 people standing at the kiosk, a person with a double pram can't go pass unless they go on the cycle lane - BIG PROBLEM AND ILLEGAL! Even in the UK.



2. Economics - The fish shop already has hardly any punters, so why another place.



3. Location - there are enough empty shops around Grand Parade, Norman Road, etc. Why not take one of these?



4. Smell - whatever this place is meant to sell: fried fish, fried bacon, fried chips, fried bread? Fried smelly oil!



Additional comments:

Another (like the Little Fish and Chip Shop) unattractive and shortsighted idea. I think point 1 though might get the applicants and the council in big trouble.

Miss Lesley Restorick

Comment submitted date: Thu 18 Dec 2014

I object on the grounds that the promenade is beautiful and I feel it shouldn't be spoilt by a retail outlet. We have a whole area of shops for people to buy and spend. Please let the promenade remain free of retail outlets, maintaining the aesthetics and beauty of the promenade. The pier, once finished, will no doubt have space for retail outlets; I feel this is enough.

Many people come to this area because of the beauty of the beach - and they go to the beach to get away from the hustle and bustle of shopping and buying.

Please do not agree to this proposal.

Showing 1-10 of 24|1|2|3|

an Idox solution