HS/TP/16/00089
|
Various tree works
|
Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
- Details
- Comments (52)
- Constraints (24)
- Documents (0)
- Related Cases (1)
- Total Consulted: 0
- Comments Received: 52
- Objections: 51
- Supporting: 0
Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 52|1|2|3|4|5|6|Next
Mr Bernard McGinley
Comment submitted date: Thu 24 Mar 2016
The belated proposal by HBC to treat this application under delegated powers for a decision by HBC Officers is objectionable in itself. Reasons include:
¦ the planning application was seriously inaccurate and wilfully vague
¦ the supine acceptance of it by HBC Officers
¦ a strong likelihood that the underresourced Council will not monitor the works
¦ a strong likelihood that the underresourced Council will not pursue enforcement where that has become unfortunately appropriate
¦ lost trees will take a very long time to be replaced, if ever
¦ trees affect the drainage of the site and therefore the geological stability of the lands there
¦ persistent descreening of the caravan site for its commercial aggrandisement, and the parallel destruction of the setting of the Country Park, so exceptional
¦ permanent damage to the visitor economy of Hastings if it becomes much less worth visiting than it was
¦ the unfeasible assertion by Officers that delegated powers are appropriate when (given so many objections, for instance) they are not
¦ the appearance of a vested interest in the planning permission for the Bunker (?952?) and in maintaining ? against informed legal opinion ? that it remains ?live?.
* * *
The HBC Planning Protocol (adopted 18 December 2013) states:
?Planning decisions should be made openly, impartially, with sound judgement and for justifiable reasons. The process should leave no grounds for suggesting that a decision has been partial, biased or not well-founded in any way.?
Delegated powers notoriously led to the Bunker, and to Cllr Birch?s acknowledgement of mistakes made. (See the Bahcheli Report, the Coffey Report, the ?RH? Caravan Report and many other documents for details of the lamentable history of this site.) A decision made on this basis would lack the openness, impartiality, soundness and other qualities mentioned in the Planning Protocol stipulation quoted above. Instead there would be every suspicion of furtiveness and bias and dodgy dealing.
A site this important and this geologically sensitive cannot be left to ?delegated powers? and the persistent carelessness of Rocklands management. Were it accepted by HBC that Officers should decide this case, many formal complaints would follow.
HBC Members who share these concerns should make their views known TODAY (Thursday 24 March). Tuesday morning may be too late.
Comment submitted date: Thu 24 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Tue 29 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Tue 29 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Thu 31 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Sun 03 Apr 2016
1) This planning application remains objectionable, and the proposal to treat the application under delegated powers is unacceptable.
2) The attempted justifications are false, and not a matter of Officers? discretion.
3) Rocklands is within Hastings Country Park and the High Weald AONB. The Country Park is where the High Weald meets the sea ? a unique and exceptional site.
4) This is a very bad application ? incomplete, contradictory, inaccurate, out-of-date, and vague.
5) The processing of the case by HBC has been very poor, and accepting of inadequate information. (Objections by contrast have been detailed and wide-ranging.)
6) Tree felling affects drainage and makes likely further landslip at Rocklands and Ecclesbourne Glen. Landslip on the site is acknowledged but otherwise undiscussed. This is not good enough.
7) It was only after the three-week deadline had expired that Natural England were asked to comment on this application. Again this is not good enough.
8) Another relevant organisation, the High Weald AONB Unit, has been asked to comment, but perhaps that was on 29 March too. The High Weald Management Plan 2014?2019 (Section 2.5: The importance of the setting of an AONB) states:
?Development and other activities within the setting of an AONB may have an impact on all these processes as well as affecting views into and out of the AONB.?
9) The Management Plan is work of the Joint Advisory Committee, on which Hastings Borough Council is represented.
10) HBC?s Policy EN7 (in the Local Plan) is lavish in its commitment to protecting the AONB and the undeveloped coastline. Unfortunately the Council has persistently resisted proposals for rescreening at Rocklands, a site which used to be little noticed and is now a major eyesore.
11) Protocols and Memoranda proclaim the Council?s commitment to transparency and accountability and decisions openly arrived at. Why therefore is there so little of it?
12) The proposal to use delegated powers is a barefaced breach of the Council?s Constitution (Section 8, Part 3b, Paragraph 44) which gives exemption to cases attracting three objections. This case has attracted over 50 objections and a petition of 111 signatures.
13) The Bunker disfiguring the East Hill remains a monument to the use of delegated powers. Following uproar, hundreds of objections, and some reports, reforms were announced by Cllr Jeremy Birch (see HBC Cabinet Report and Minutes of December 2014). These are now being reneged on.
14) In this context, HBC?s primary duty is to protect and enhance Hastings Country Park ? not the commercial aggrandisement of Rocklands Caravan Park. (Seeking actively to work with a planning applicant in a positive and proactive manner in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework is fine, but the principles of local democracy suggest that the views of local people should also be reflected, not ignored. It is also reported that the Councillor for Old Hastings Ward was obstructed in this matter, which is troubling.)
15) HBC?s persistently shoddy record on Rocklands is an increasing cause of concern. The oddly late decision to try to use delegated powers is one instance among many. This ?various tree works? application should go to Committee.
16) The appeal on the Bunker will be heard by the Planning Inspector from 10 a.m. on Thursday 21 April, downstairs at the White Rock Theatre.
Comment submitted date: Mon 11 Apr 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Tue 19 Apr 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Mon 25 Apr 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Thu 19 May 2016
1. In March and April, the Council's line was that tree cases 'without exception' were dealt with under delegated powers. When that was refuted, the argument was quietly abandoned.
2. Now they maintain that this planning application is ineligible for the exemptions listed in the HBC Constitution. Again this is not true.
3. Part 8 of the Constitution (Standing Instructions to Authorised Officers), Part 3b, Section E, has the relevant details.
4. Paragraph 43 lists delegated matters, including 43 f: 'Approval of any matters required to be submitted pursuant to conditions imposed on any permission, consent or approval given under the Town and Country Planning Acts'.
5. This tree works application (HS/TP/16/00089) is a proposed amendment to a Tree Protection Order. The Tree Protection Order for Rocklands (TPO No 286, made in January 2015) was imposed under section 198 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, and can be seen online. Both documents cite this Act.
6. Question 5 of the application form for this case asks: 'Are you seeking consent for works to trees subject to a TPO?' The 'Yes' box to this question is ticked. The tree works application is therefore 'pursuant to conditions' as Paragraph 43 f. requires, being an amendment to TPO 286, the TPO having been given under the relevant Act.
7. Paragraph 43 f. of this part of the Council's Constitution therefore applies.
8. Paragraph 44 a. of this same section details the exemptions from the use of delegated powers by Council Officers:
44. This authority is subject to the following exceptions:
a. The application has attracted three or more letters of objection from different households or businesses, or a petition as defined in Standing Orders . . .
9. In this instance there are over 60 objections and a petition of 111 signatures. Clearly this case qualifies for exemption from delegated powers and should go to the Planning Committee, for a decision by our elected representatives.
10. There are other good reasons to take this case to Committee.
11. The file states falsely that there are no Related Cases in this matter - no Appeals and no Enforcements. However the Planning Inspector has yet to decide on the fate of the Bunker (a monument to delegated powers). Cases HS/FA/12/00952 and HS/FA/14/01036 are very much 'live'.
12. HBC have a duty to protect the Country Park. Their judgements here are the latest contribution to their poor reputation regarding planning.
Mrs Patricia Stephenson
Comment submitted date: Fri 11 Mar 2016
I strongly object to this application for the following reasons: As pointed out by objectors, the Mayhew consultancy have provided a photograph which is several years old and therefore irrelevant to this application. Many of the trees shown in these photographs NO LONGER EXIST. Therefore these photographs submitted by the Mayhew Consultancy CANNOT be used in evidence. No tree works should be permitted until the stability of the site has been established. The ground remains unstable and so far there has been no confirmation that this site will not suffer further movement. This application is full of errors and one has to wonder how the planning department has permitted this application to go forward - much of the scant detail is out of date: the plans are not to scale: many trees have already been removed without permission and there is inadequate detail given about the trees which are to felled, lopped, pollarded, pruned, coppiced or otherwise treated. ALL WORKS on this site should be suspended until such time that the stability of the LOWER SLOPES has been assessed and appropriate action taken to stablilize them. Any further tree works or ground works will increase the likelihood of further ground movement and increase the risk to personal safety on this site. Another factor which has been given little coverage is the condition of the sewage system at Rocklands. It would appear that this system is further threatened by the landslip and urgent action should be taken by Hastings Borough Council to prevent the serious contamination which will occur should no remedial actions be authorised.
One has to ask whether this application to remove even more trees is a method whereby the proprietors of this business seek to make space for the illegal caravans which are in situe but without the legally required spacing. How very convenient to endeavour to classify trees as diseased in order to create space for caravans which are at the present time illegally parked on this site.
This application must be refused. It is a sad indictment of the planning processes in this town that so much damage has been carried out despite concerns raised by residents. This application must be refused. The continuing damage and devastation to our country park has to cease.
Comment submitted date: Mon 14 Mar 2016
The Planning Committee must be informed prior to any decision on this application that the photographs submitted by the Mayhew consultancy are out of date and bear no resemblance to the site as it is now. One has to question why the planning department has permitted these out of date photographs to be used as supporting evidence when officers are fully aware of the current state of the caravan site.
Comment submitted date: Tue 15 Mar 2016
It is great concern that nowhere within the Mayhew Consultancy report is there any mention of the Scheduled Ancient Monument which is within the line of tree works applied for. Neither does it appear that Historic England or the County Archeologist have been consulted on this application. There are some very serious omissions within this application.
Comment submitted date: Wed 23 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Tue 29 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 30 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 06 Apr 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Tue 19 Apr 2016
Dear Ms. Greathead - I am in receipt of your electronic communication of today's date. A somewhat strange letter if I may say so.As far as I am aware I have never quoted any 'paragraphs' in connection with this issue. I have always simply asked why officers have decreed that such a contentious and important issue should be decided behind closed doors. Mr. Palmer is seriously confused in his statement that I made any such reference to any paragraphs. He is confusing me with other residents who have written to you and this does not inspire confidence that my letter has been given a respectful reading. I have to hand a copy of the email I sent to our MP and I cannot see any references to any paragraphs. All references refer to the unwise decision to take this application behind closed. This prospect does nothing to enchance this council's rather shaky reputation in all things concerning planning matters. Your actions are very likely to damage the council's reputation further rather than enhance. It is simply beyond comprehension why such a decision has been made especially when, contrary to your opinion, there is nothing within the Constitution which suggests that TPO applications MUST ALWAYS be decided via the Delegated route. This is simply not true. It is a manipulation and distortion of what the Constitution actually prescribes. There have been extreme comments emanating from officers going as far to proclaim that 'without exception' TPO applications MUST be decided via the delegated route. This is simply NOT CORRECT. Officers have been sent details of a plethora of TPO applications which have been decided by the Planning Committee - and none of the council officers have had the courtesy to explain this deviation from what you are now telling us. Officers do have the power to decide which route all applications should take but without exception all the Rocklands caravan park applications have caused such an outcry in this town it is beyond belief that any council would advise hearing ANYTHING behind closed doors which concerns this private enterprise which has managed to flout nearly every planning regulation 'in the book' - aside from this, the planning application is full of errors which remain uncorrected. Why was this application 'verified' before the application details were checked? This is not an unusual occurence: In a previous application to build the 'bunker', the applicant states that he has received no pre application advice from any officer- we all know this is not the case at all. Mr. Ray Crawford gave the applicant and his agent very detailed written notes on how best to present the application and his hard copy memo is public knowledge. There is now much murmuring and questioning as to why there is such panic to have this application decided behind closed doors. The officers would be well advised to have a serious rethink. Yours sincerely, Mrs. Patricia Stephenson.
Comment submitted date: Wed 20 Apr 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Sat 23 Apr 2016
Please see documents tab.
Mr Chris Hurrell
Comment submitted date: Tue 08 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Thu 17 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Sat 23 Apr 2016
I was allowed to visit the site on Friday 22/04/16 as part of the appeal process.
I was able to see the land around the tree marked at location 8 on the Mayhew report and described a s a tree of heaven. The Mayhew report claims that there is ground cracking causing the tree to be at an angle. There was no evidence whatsoever of ground cracking. The tree is at an angle and appears to be very healthy. I am surprised that Mr Wilken failed to notice that there is no evidence of ground cracking. One wonders whether Mr Wilken has properly inspected the site before approving this application. I recommend that this tree remains with some form of support. This tree is in an area which could take 1 or 2 caravans if the tree was removed. I conclude that the real reason for felling is to allow some displaced caravans or solar panels to be placed here.
Mrs Lynne Okines
Comment submitted date: Mon 07 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Thu 10 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Tue 15 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 16 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Tue 29 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 30 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 30 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 20 Apr 2016
Please see documents tab.
Anne Scott
Comment submitted date: Sat 09 Apr 2016
Please see documents tab.
Mr Ollie Watson
Comment submitted date: Mon 04 Apr 2016
I strongly object to this application. The present owners of this site have illegally built a structure within the boundary of the country park and in doing so destroyed a major part of the country park's habitat and destabilized the entire cliff area which has resulted in a major landslip - shutting a huge area of the park to the public. They should be replanting and working to a schedule to repair and to reinstate trees. The fact there is debate and further consideration by HBC to support yet further destruction of this protected site is utterly ridiculous.
Ms Kate Man
Comment submitted date: Mon 04 Apr 2016
I object to this application as follows:
Lack of accuracy and adequacy of details of the trees/locations/site plans/intended works;
Not addressing fact they are in/adjacent to a Conservation Area; SSSI; & AONB. have Hastings Coincil sought the advice of the AONB Unit, as recommended by natural England?;
Ignoring fact that the trees provide visual amenity benefits to the local landscape and cutting them will make yet more of the Caravan Park visble;
Not addressing the issues of soil stability and erosion that have been highlighted in comments over previous applications for the same site.
Mr Richard Heritage
Comment submitted date: Wed 23 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 30 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab
Mr Bob Okines
Comment submitted date: Fri 11 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Tue 29 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 30 Mar 2016
Please see documents tab.
Mr Alan Wright
Comment submitted date: Fri 25 Mar 2016
I would like to strongly object to this application. The removal of more trees will only harm this area more. It is already incredibly dangerous in that area due to erosion caused by tree removal.
Showing 1-10 of 52|1|2|3|4|5|6|Next