HS/FA/20/00470
|
Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of Appeal Decision APP/B1415/C/15/3029007 (EN/15/00028, HS/FA/14/01036) Amendments to balcony fenestration, appearance of the dining area window (north side - omitting opening casement) and omission of middle balcony post on south side
|
Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
- Total Consulted: 0
- Comments Received: 9
- Objections: 9
- Supporting: 0
-
Collapse All|Expand All
Mr Chris Hurrell
Comment submitted date: Tue 28 Jul 2020
Could you please give me an update concerning unauthorised retaining walls, recessed step area and excavations. These issues were first raised over a year ago.
I note that a retrospective planning application was submitted on the 10th July to vary the plans for the building
I am disappointed that I have not been kept informed despite several requests for an update.
The application does not include any reference to the depth of the balcony on the sea facing side of the building. My calculations show that the depth of this balcony to be around 50cm greater than the 2 metres allowed.
Can you please confirm that the depth of this balcony has been measured to ensure it complies with the approved plans.
The application only covers some of the balcony issues and does not address the unauthorised retaining walls, recessed step area and excavations.
Prior to any retrospective application being processed it is essential that these issues are addressed.
I am still waiting for a response from you on whether an independent remeasurement of the building will take place.
Without such a remeasurement we cannot be certain that the building complies with the approved plans.
Prior to any retrospective application being processed it is essential that the building is remeasured to ensure that the application covers all aspects of the building.
Comment submitted date: Wed 19 Aug 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 13 Jan 2021
Objection ? Structural Reports concerning Balconies and ground stability are referred to but have not been provided
Dear Sir/Madam
The committee report states that there are no concerns regarding Structural Stability
Structural Stability
It would appear that there should be no concerns regarding the structural stability of the
balcony as a result of the omission of the balcony support on the south elevation, noting that
the spacing without support posts on the eastern elevation (as approved) exceeds the
spacing on the south. Building control have commented that the removal of the post could
require mitigatory measures elsewhere in the design. Nevertheless, the issue of the
structural stability of the building in terms of its construction, is a matter to be dealt with
through the Building Regulations process, outside of Planning control.
Ground Stability
The supporting evidence for the claim that there are no concerns regarding structural stability has not been posted against the planning application.
Building control comments have bene cited but are posted against the planning application.
Our concern was that the structural stability of the balcony is affected by removal of a stanchion.
Building Control have only reviewed cantilevered balconies as originally proposed by hs/fa/12/952. Stanchions were introduced post approval of hs/fa/12/952.
Please provide a copy of the supporting evidence for this claim or post against the planning website.
The committee report refers to a structural report in the context of Ground Stability
Ground Stability
Furthermore, a structural report has been submitted to demonstrate that the removal of the
support post underneath the balcony on the south elevation will not impose risk of instability/
collapse in respect of ground stability.
The structural report cited has not been posted against the planning application.
The structural report appears to refer to ground stability following removal of a stanchion.
Please provide a copy of the structural report or post on the website.
SEG
Comment submitted date: Thu 13 Aug 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Thu 27 Aug 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Thu 03 Sep 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Mon 14 Sep 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 23 Sep 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 23 Sep 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 07 Oct 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 07 Oct 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Sat 07 Nov 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Sun 08 Nov 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Sun 08 Nov 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 11 Nov 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 25 Nov 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Fri 04 Dec 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Wed 16 Dec 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Sat 26 Dec 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Mon 04 Jan 2021
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Sat 09 Jan 2021
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Mon 11 Jan 2021
Please see documents tab.
Mr Bernard McGinley
Comment submitted date: Wed 19 Aug 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Mon 12 Oct 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Fri 04 Dec 2020
Please see documents tab.
Mrs Lynne Okines
Comment submitted date: Tue 04 Aug 2020
HS/FA/20/00470 | Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of Appeal Decision APP/B1415/C/15/3029007 (EN/15/00028, HS/FA/14/01036) Amendments to balcony fenestration, appearance of the dining area window (north side - omitting opening casement) and omission of middle balcony post on south side | Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
Dear Sir
I would appreciate it if the whole of the attached email thread concerning this application, and other breaches in planning control, could be posted on the planning website against the above planning application.
I am concerned that the investigations that were being undertaken by Mr Sawyer will somehow be forgotten with this current application - a 'minor material amendment' can only be judged against the original approved plans; the amendment should not result in a development that is substantially different from the one that has been approved. There have been substantial changes made to the development, and its infrastructure, without prior permission, that cannot be described as being 'minor', which includes a substantial retaining wall to two sides of the property with stepped access and 'proposed' paved area to the car parking area; restored bank and additional planting that was not approved under the main permission - the condition that relates to additional planting on the main permission is yet to be implemented.
The 'proposed' additional paved area, mentioned within the 'Heritage Statement', but not included within the submitted plans, would by its nature and position, require additional drainage and archaeological investigations as it is located within the 'Scheduled Ancient Monument', which according to the 'Discharge of Condition' permission, would render the imposed conditions in respect of those areas undischarged. I note that 'Historic England' have been notified in respect of this current application, but not in respect of the 'proposed' paved area, and other unauthorised infrastructure noted within my enforcement complaint.
I contacted the Council over a year ago in respect of the retaining wall, stepped access, restored bank and additional planting and was told that this would be investigated as a separate proposal from the patio extension under consideration at that time, which although described as an amendment to the approved plans was determined as a full and fresh application in its own rights, which apparently stands alone from the main permission - although they share the same redline area. It was stated categorically that the application could not be judged as an amendment to the approved plans as the main permission had been implemented - a year later, apparently, the retrospective amendments to the balcony construction, and a window on the north side of the building, can be judged as an amendment to the main permission.
What has changed that now makes it possible to judge this current application as an amendment? The building, by the owners admission, is not complete and conditions attached to the main permission have not been fully discharged - the case officer states that it is obvious that the permission has been implemented by the works that have taken place, but the permission granted by the Inspector was in part retrospective as the building was outside of its permission; the developers were granted a 'new' approval subject to changes in the height of the building and the reduction of the balcony?
The developers and owners of the caravan park reduced the bulk and length of the balcony to broadly relate to the approved plans, there is still doubt whether the measurements are within tolerance, but then when no one appeared to be looking added an extension so that the balcony extended the full length of the south-east elevation, which was against the Inspector's express wishes.
This extension has been removed, and an application submitted to regularise the other changes to the balcony that do not conform to the Inspector's wishes, or building control regulations.
As the developer did not conform to the approved plans when he added an extension to the balcony - has he rendered the permission invalid, or could it be argued that the 'new' permission has not been implemented as it does not conform to the revised approval?
The developers' agent puts much emphasis on the aesthetics of the building and whether it affects the setting of the 'SAM' or the 'Conservation Area' but does not include evidence on whether reducing the number of stanchion posts, or adding additional bulk and weight to the balcony structure meets building control regulations, or their own structural engineer's specifications. According to the 'Discharge of Conditions' application, HS/CD/16/00665, revised plans were submitted to building control with a note that any changes to the plans would require their structural engineer and building control to be consulted and informed.
Many excuses were made when it was discovered that the two storey holiday let building did not conform to the approved plans, it was the developers' architects fault, or the fault of their builders; the height of the building and changes to the window and door fenestrations had to be changed as they could not obtain the materials to meet specifications? They have been granted a reprieve as the planning committee and enforcement department wanted the building to be removed in its entirety, but still the developer does not believe that he has to follow the rules.
Yours faithfully
Lynne Okines
Comment submitted date: Thu 06 Aug 2020
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Tue 18 Aug 2020
Dear Mrs Wood
Thank you for your email.
It was my understanding, from the correspondence from your admin team at DCComments, that it was you, as case officer, that asked whether I would like my correspondence to Mr Sawyer included as part of my objection to the current planning application: HS/FA/20/00470.
Therefore, I was perplexed that my response to your questions was submitted as an objection, and not the actual email correspondence. I rewrote to DCComments, copying out the part that I would like included as part of my objection ? you now state that I cannot submit anything as you consider this to be a separate enforcement complaint to the one that included the balcony extension, and other unauthorised works around the balcony extension.
I cannot see how the two can be separated as the enforcement complaint, and correspondence written to me from Mr Sawyer, included the balcony extension as part of the complaint ? see attached (EN/20/00076).
The current application has been submitted as an amendment to the approved plans (albeit retrospective) and the other unauthorised developments are within the same redline area of the application site, so how can they be separated?
I have written an objection to planning application: HS/FA/20/00470, submitted yesterday, and have included details of my enforcement complaint, outlining my reasons why I think that the two areas of unauthorised development cannot be separated.
This current application is part retrospective, and seems to include a proposal for a paved area from the two storey holiday let building to the car park, but there are no plans, and no details of the proposal, other than a brief mention made by the applicants' agent.
I do not think that as objector to a planning application you can dictate what I include within my objection, and pre-determine whether it is acceptable without reading it in context with the history of the site ? the other unauthorised works are relevant to the current application as they are all within the redline area of the application site, and are deviations to the approved plans ? as are the balcony deviations. Just because the developer has removed part of the deviations before submitting revised plans does not make it acceptable.
The enforcement complaints EN/19/00306 and ENF/20/00076 should be included within the history of the site as should any other planning applications (approvals and refusals) that are relevant to the same redline area.
Over a year ago you removed any reference to the unauthorised retaining wall, stepped access and restored bank with additional planting from the retrospective patio extension, stating that it would be dealt with as a separate application, you now state that you are requiring me to remove any reference to these unauthorised works from the retrospective balcony works.
The planning department want to know what you think - first and foremost - and this is especially true of the local Councillors (Ward Members and Planning Committee members).
Consider things like:
What effect will the application have on you and your family?
How will it affect your quality of life?
Will the proposal have a detrimental or deleterious impact on you, other properties or wildlife?
Is there anything that you think is relevant that others may have forgotten?
Do you know of anything that the developer has deliberately missed or glossed over in their application?
I think that as this application has been submitted as a variation to the approved plans, albeit retrospective, then any developments that are within the application site that have not gone through the planning system are relevant and should not be ignored.
Yours sincerely
Lynne Okines
From: Stephanie Wood [mailto:SWood@hastings.gov.uk] Sent: 11 August 2020 09:24To: bob okinesCc: DCCommentsSubject: FW: Enquiry Number: ENF/19/00306 - Subject: Erection of retaining wall, engineering works to a bank, steps and tree planting - Location: Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
Dear Mrs Okines
Thank you for your email. I am unable to authorise this email thread to be uploaded as a formal objection, as it relates to a separate enforcement case, and not the planning application in question. If you would like to submit a new objection incorporating your concerns with regard to HS/FA/20/00470 only, then I will be happy to upload it.
Kind regards
Stephanie Wood
Assistant Planning Manager
Development Management
Hastings Borough Council Muriel Matters House, Breeds Place, Hastings, East Sussex, TN34 3UY01424 783329hastings.gov.uk
From: bob okines Sent: 07 August 2020 08:47To: DCCommentsSubject: RE: Enquiry Number: ENF/19/00306 - Subject: Erection of retaining wall, engineering works to a bank, steps and tree planting - Location: Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
Planning Application: HS/FA/20/00470
Description: Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of Appeal Decision APP/B1415/C/15/3029007 (EN/15/00028, HS/FA/14/01036) Amendments to balcony fenestration, appearance of the dining area window (north side - omitting opening casement) and omission of middle balcony post on south side
Address: Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
Dear Sir
You wrote to me asking whether I would like the points raised within my email to your enforcement officer, 28 July 2020, to be added to the application as an objection ? to which I replied that I would, but you seem to have only included my response to you to that question, and have not included my concerns raised through the enforcement complaint.
Please could you include my correspondence from 28 July 2020 as part of my objection to planning application: HS/FA/20/00470.
I have copied the relevant email below for your reference:
'From: bob okines Sent: 28 July 2020 11:02To: Matthew Sawyer <Matthew.Sawyer@hastings.gov.uk>Cc: Eleanor Evans <EEvans@hastings.gov.uk>; Andrew Palmer <APalmer@hastings.gov.uk>Subject: RE: Enquiry Number: ENF/19/00306 - Subject: Erection of retaining wall, engineering works to a bank, steps and tree planting - Location: Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
Dear Mr Sawyer
It has been over a month since you gave me an update on the unauthorised works within Rocklands Private Holiday Caravan Park. Within your letter, dated 11 June 2020, you stated that you have written to the owners' agent requiring the owners to either restore the retaining wall to its former condition or to submit a planning application to regularise the works ? you also stated that you had asked them to submit applications to regularise the steps and restored bank. As part of your response to me you stated that you had asked the property owners' agent to submit an application for the amendments to the balcony that had been performed without prior permission ? which included an extension, the removal of one of the stanchions and changes to the number and appearance of the glass panels.
Enquiry Number:
ENF/20/00076
Subject:
Unauthorised balcony, retaining wall, steps and restored bank
Location:
Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
'?I have written to the property owner's agent requiring them to either restore the retaining wall to it's former condition or submit applications to regularise the works. I have also asked them to submit applications to regularise the steps and restored bank. Central Government requires Local Planning Authorities to negotiate a resolution before proceeding to formal enforcement action. I will therefore allow the property owner 28 days to remove or submit an application to regularise the retaining wall. This is not however an indication that an application is likely to be successful. It will be assessed fully against planning legislation and policy. If no applications are submitted we will review the matter and consider whether further formal enforcement action is appropriate.
I have also contacted Historic England for their advice on whether the retaining wall causes harm to the neighbouring Ancient Monument. I will try to arrange for a member of Historic England to visit the site with me if they have the resources or send them photos to analyse if necessary.
I have already written to the property owner's agent requiring them to amend the balcony so that it complies with the approved plans.
Please contact me in around 4 weeks for a further update.'
Today, I received notification of an 'amendment' to the approved plans for Rocklands Private Holiday Caravan Park, reference: HS/FA/20/00470 | Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of Appeal Decision APP/B1415/C/15/3029007 (EN/15/00028, HS/FA/14/01036) Amendments to balcony fenestration, appearance of the dining area window (north side - omitting opening casement) and omission of middle balcony post on south side | Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
This application seems to have been submitted after the extended balcony construction was removed (the application was received 2 July 2020, and our supporters noticed that the extension had been removed on 3 July 2020) ? it is not clear whether this was the result of your enforcement enquiry (11 June 2020 ? ENF/20/00076), as there are no details given within the application form, and the applicants do not specify what specific pre-application advise was given, other than 'Submission of an application required for the changes to the balcony's fenestration', or even who gave it. At the time of the advice the balcony construction was much different to the plans subsequently submitted, so that the applicants can now claim the minor nature of the retrospective works, leaving out all of the other changes that have been identified, but apparently ignored.
What is clear is that the application is submitted as a minor variation to the approved plans without the other unauthorised structures, mentioned within your letter, being listed at all ? is it proposed to submit the applications as several 'minor' variations to the approved plans, therefore trivialising the changes that were made without prior approval so that it appears as if the changes are truly minor, when in reality they should have been submitted as a retrospective planning application for all of the unauthorised changes, which under no circumstances can be described as being 'minor'.
The other unauthorised changes, mentioned within your letter as requiring regularisation, should have been included within this application as they all share the same redline area approved under the main permission.
Also, it is mentioned within the 'Heritage Statement' that there is a proposal to create a paved access in front of the main house (balcony window) as part of this application, yet there are no details of this 'proposed' structure any of the submitted plans. It is not clear whether the paved access is a proposal, or whether it is in situ as the balcony changes and other alterations are marked as 'proposals' when they are in fact already there.
http://publicaccess.hastings.gov.uk/online-applications/files/9F8C45D42F1DE1E2E5E027A39D3F00E1/pdf/HS_FA_20_00470-HERITAGE_STATEMENT-823006....pdf
'A small extension to the SAM extending into the Rocklands site was added in 1994 and abuts the bay window of Rocklands House on its south east side. It is not clear why the extension was added given the location has received considerable modern disturbance. The proposed paving area would be within this part of the SAM.'
We have asked on several occasions what the purpose of the stepped access is, that emanates from two storey holiday let building, which has been ignored ? in fact your colleagues stated that the stepped access could not be found, in spite of photographic evidence of the steps being published as part of the patio extension application. It is now clear that the proposal is to create an access from the holiday let building to the main car parking area ? which was a proposal put forward on planning application: HS/FA/14/01036, which was refused. This proposal was not part of the plans approved by the Inspector, and neither was the retaining wall with stepped access and restored bank.
My enforcement query in respect of the unauthorised retaining structure, stepped access and restored bank was submitted over a year ago, yet we seem no nearer to a retrospective planning application that includes these structures ? my enforcement query was submitted long before the balcony extension was added?
Please can you give me an indication on when the retrospective planning applications are expected for the other unauthorised structures?
I am surprised at the lack of supporting documentation and clear plans submitted with this application ? it is also not clear whether external consultees will, or have been contacted, as the paved access will be within the 'Scheduled Ancient Monument', which will require consent.
Although the changes to the balcony extension have been trivialised they are in conflict with the engineer's details that were submitted to building control, as is the window that was required under building control approval to be able to be opened, and an escape route.
Yours sincerely
Lynne Okines'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
Lynne Okines
From: DCComments [mailto:DCComments@hastings.gov.uk] Sent: 03 August 2020 18:07To:
Subject: RE: Enquiry Number: ENF/19/00306 - Subject: Erection of retaining wall, engineering works to a bank, steps and tree planting - Location: Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
Dear Mrs Okines
The case officer for planning application HS/FA/20/00470 has asked us to contact you to confirm if you would like the points you raise in your email of 28 July to be added to the application as an objection?
Kind Regards
Planning Services Administration Team
Housing and Development Management
Hastings Borough Council
Muriel Matters House, Breeds Place, Hastings, TN34 3UY
01424 451090
hastings.gov.uk
From: Eleanor Evans Sent: 28 July 2020 12:11To: bob okines Cc: Andrew Palmer <APalmer@hastings.gov.uk>Subject: RE: Enquiry Number: ENF/19/00306 - Subject: Erection of retaining wall, engineering works to a bank, steps and tree planting - Location: Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
Dear Mrs Okines,
Thank you for your email. Matthew Sawyer has left our employment so I would be grateful if you could send future correspondence to planningenforcement@hastings.gov.uk...
I will pass your comments regarding the planning application : HS/FA/20/00470 to the case officer as these make general comments and raise points regarding the application and application type.
In terms of the stepped access you will note from pervious correspondence to you that the steps have been in place for some time and were therefore lawful however as I understand it you consider further works have been undertaken in respect of these steps and the bank. We have therefore contacted the owner on this point and are yet to hear back. We will therefore get back in touch with them on this point.
Kind regards
Eleanor
Eleanor Evans
Planning Services Manager
Development Management
Hastings Borough Council
Muriel Matters House, Breeds Place, Hastings, East Sussex, TN34 3UY
01424 783251
www.hastings.gov.uk/planning
From: bob okines Sent: 28 July 2020 11:02To: Matthew Sawyer <Matthew.Sawyer@hastings.gov.uk>Cc: Eleanor Evans <EEvans@hastings.gov.uk>; Andrew Palmer <APalmer@hastings.gov.uk>Subject: RE: Enquiry Number: ENF/19/00306 - Subject: Erection of retaining wall, engineering works to a bank, steps and tree planting - Location: Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
Dear Mr Sawyer
It has been over a month since you gave me an update on the unauthorised works within Rocklands Private Holiday Caravan Park. Within your letter, dated 11 June 2020, you stated that you have written to the owners' agent requiring the owners to either restore the retaining wall to its former condition or to submit a planning application to regularise the works ? you also stated that you had asked them to submit applications to regularise the steps and restored bank. As part of your response to me you stated that you had asked the property owners' agent to submit an application for the amendments to the balcony that had been performed without prior permission ? which included an extension, the removal of one of the stanchions and changes to the number and appearance of the glass panels.
Enquiry Number:
ENF/20/00076
Subject:
Unauthorised balcony, retaining wall, steps and restored bank
Location:
Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
'?I have written to the property owner's agent requiring them to either restore the retaining wall to it's former condition or submit applications to regularise the works. I have also asked them to submit applications to regularise the steps and restored bank. Central Government requires Local Planning Authorities to negotiate a resolution before proceeding to formal enforcement action. I will therefore allow the property owner 28 days to remove or submit an application to regularise the retaining wall. This is not however an indication that an application is likely to be successful. It will be assessed fully against planning legislation and policy. If no applications are submitted we will review the matter and consider whether further formal enforcement action is appropriate.
I have also contacted Historic England for their advice on whether the retaining wall causes harm to the neighbouring Ancient Monument. I will try to arrange for a member of Historic England to visit the site with me if they have the resources or send them photos to analyse if necessary.
I have already written to the property owner's agent requiring them to amend the balcony so that it complies with the approved plans.
Please contact me in around 4 weeks for a further update.'
Today, I received notification of an 'amendment' to the approved plans for Rocklands Private Holiday Caravan Park, reference: HS/FA/20/00470 | Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of Appeal Decision APP/B1415/C/15/3029007 (EN/15/00028, HS/FA/14/01036) Amendments to balcony fenestration, appearance of the dining area window (north side - omitting opening casement) and omission of middle balcony post on south side | Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
This application seems to have been submitted after the extended balcony construction was removed (the application was received 2 July 2020, and our supporters noticed that the extension had been removed on 3 July 2020) ? it is not clear whether this was the result of your enforcement enquiry (11 June 2020 ? ENF/20/00076), as there are no details given within the application form, and the applicants do not specify what specific pre-application advise was given, other than 'Submission of an application required for the changes to the balcony's fenestration', or even who gave it. At the time of the advice the balcony construction was much different to the plans subsequently submitted, so that the applicants can now claim the minor nature of the retrospective works, leaving out all of the other changes that have been identified, but apparently ignored.
What is clear is that the application is submitted as a minor variation to the approved plans without the other unauthorised structures, mentioned within your letter, being listed at all ? is it proposed to submit the applications as several 'minor' variations to the approved plans, therefore trivialising the changes that were made without prior approval so that it appears as if the changes are truly minor, when in reality they should have been submitted as a retrospective planning application for all of the unauthorised changes, which under no circumstances can be described as being 'minor'.
The other unauthorised changes, mentioned within your letter as requiring regularisation, should have been included within this application as they all share the same redline area approved under the main permission.
Also, it is mentioned within the 'Heritage Statement' that there is a proposal to create a paved access in front of the main house (balcony window) as part of this application, yet there are no details of this 'proposed' structure any of the submitted plans. It is not clear whether the paved access is a proposal, or whether it is in situ as the balcony changes and other alterations are marked as 'proposals' when they are in fact already there.
http://publicaccess.hastings.gov.uk/online-applications/files/9F8C45D42F1DE1E2E5E027A39D3F00E1/pdf/HS_FA_20_00470-HERITAGE_STATEMENT-823006....pdf
'A small extension to the SAM extending into the Rocklands site was added in 1994 and abuts the bay window of Rocklands House on its south east side. It is not clear why the extension was added given the location has received considerable modern disturbance. The proposed paving area would be within this part of the SAM.'
We have asked on several occasions what the purpose of the stepped access is, that emanates from two storey holiday let building, which has been ignored ? in fact your colleagues stated that the stepped access could not be found, in spite of photographic evidence of the steps being published as part of the patio extension application. It is now clear that the proposal is to create an access from the holiday let building to the main car parking area ? which was a proposal put forward on planning application: HS/FA/14/01036, which was refused. This proposal was not part of the plans approved by the Inspector, and neither was the retaining wall with stepped access and restored bank.
My enforcement query in respect of the unauthorised retaining structure, stepped access and restored bank was submitted over a year ago, yet we seem no nearer to a retrospective planning application that includes these structures ? my enforcement query was submitted long before the balcony extension was added?
Please can you give me an indication on when the retrospective planning applications are expected for the other unauthorised structures?
I am surprised at the lack of supporting documentation and clear plans submitted with this application ? it is also not clear whether external consultees will, or have been contacted, as the paved access will be within the 'Scheduled Ancient Monument', which will require consent.
Although the changes to the balcony extension have been trivialised they are in conflict with the engineer's details that were submitted to building control, as is the window that was required under building control approval to be able to be opened, and an escape route.
Yours sincerely
Lynne Okines
From: Matthew Sawyer [mailto:Matthew.Sawyer@hastings.gov.uk] Sent: 13 June 2020 14:32To: bob okinesCc: Information OfficerSubject: RE: Enquiry Number: ENF/19/00306 - Subject: Erection of retaining wall, engineering works to a bank, steps and tree planting - Location: Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
Dear Ms Okines,
Please see the attached letter.
Thank you,
Matt
Matt Sawyer
Planning Enforcement Officer
Housing and Development Management
Hastings Borough Council
Tel No. 01424 783255
www.hastings.gov.uk/planning
From: bob okines Sent: 17 May 2020 10:55To: Matthew Sawyer; Eleanor EvansCc: Stephanie Wood; Planning Enforcement; Andrew Palmer; Information OfficerSubject: RE: Enquiry Number: ENF/19/00306 - Subject: Erection of retaining wall, engineering works to a bank, steps and tree planting - Location: Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
Complaint: ENF/19/00306
Dear Mr Sawyer
Thank you for your response to my enforcement enquiry. I appreciate that these are unprecedented times, and that the current pandemic has caused delays in Council investigations, and how the Council is able to operate; which might be acceptable excuses in respect of the unauthorised balcony extension, as the unauthorised nature of this extension was first reported to the Council during the lockdown period. However, it must be noted that this enforcement complaint, in respect of the balcony extension, was raised by another local resident and therefore your response, which seems to dismiss most of the details of my complaint as being irrelevant, is not relevant to me personally, or to my complaint.
My complaint to the Council was raised in July 2019, and was raised prior to the retrospective patio extension being determined, the other unauthorised works, raised in my compliant, were mentioned during the planning committee presentation, and were noted as being investigated by enforcement as a separate breach to the patio extension breach that was being considered at that time.
During the 10 months that my enforcement complaint has been 'live', and apparently investigated, I have received no definitive response to my complaint other than your office has received 'evidence', that they seem unwilling to share, that the retaining structure has been in existence since 2014 and is therefore immune from enforcement action being taken.
I think that 10 months is long enough to wait for an update of my complaint, and unfortunately your response does not suffice ? I have no knowledge on whether the unauthorised works have been allowed to continue, or whether a stop notice has been issued ? it is also not known whether the patio extension conforms to the plans that were submitted at committee on 14 August 2019 as there were irregularities in the details relayed by the case office to the planning committee ? such as the extent of the works, whether 'Scheduled Monument Consent' was obtained, the method of works, the tree protection methods, and the proposed drainage for the part constructed works.
It would appear that as enforcement action has not been taken against the reported breaches that the owner of the caravan park has performed other unauthorised works to the two storey holiday let building without obtaining prior permission from the planning department. The balcony extension, mentioned in your response to me, is just another case of unauthorised works that the owner of the caravan park thinks can be performed without gaining prior permission from the LPA. This current breach follows a long list of planning and licencing breaches that have cost the Council time and money in investigating without much success.
The other unauthorised works, identified prior to the planning committee meeting, that share the same redline area as the two storey holiday let building, have yet to be addressed in either enforcement action being considered, or taken, or a request for a 'retrospective' planning application required.
The works identified in my complaint are a retaining wall to two sides of the property, a stepped access to the main building, a restored bank and additional tree planting outside of that imposed on the main unit ? all of these unauthorised works are within a 'SAM' without prior consent from 'Historic England'. The owners also only received 'SMC' for two sides of the patio extension, when it extends to all four sides of the main property.
It is also not known whether you intend to allow the developer, and caravan park owners, to submit a 'retrospective' planning application to regularise the whole development, as the developers have deviated from their approved plans for the two storey holiday let building and this deviation includes the balcony extension mentioned in your response to me. All of the deviations from the approved plans, if considered together and not watered down and excused, amount to a significant breach in planning control, and are in breach of the planning inspector's express wishes.
It is my opinion that all of the unauthorised developments should have been addressed at the same time, and not as separate planning applications ? the planning department were aware of the other unauthorised works at the time of the decision of the 'retrospective' patio extension, but chose to separate them with the intention of dealing with them some time in the future, or never!
My enforcement complaint, which you seem to have dismissed as being dealt with by your department with my knowledge and consent, has not been investigated at all; the only response being that the Council has received evidence that the retaining wall has been in existence since 2014 and was therefore considered immune from enforcement action being taken. I have supplied additional 'evidence' to the contrary, and additional evidence that the restored bank and tree replanting was outside of the site owners original planning permission, and did not conform to the requirements of their planning conditions ? I have received no acknowledgement of this 'evidence'.
I have disputed this evidence, the validity of which has not been supplied in spite of me raising a 'Freedom of Information' request to the Council for sight of this 'evidence'.
You have attached an email thread to your response, but do not seem to have read the contents, or taken any notice of my arguments ? which you now state have been resolved with my knowledge.
In my email response, which was attached to a covering letter, which you also seem to have ignored, I stated:
'You state in your response to me that you have received 'evidence' that the retaining wall, referenced in this complaint, to the north-west and south-west of the two storey holiday let building has been in situ, since 2014.
Although your letter seems to refer to a previous retaining structure that serviced a bungalow that shared the same application site, situated on the south and west elevations of the now demolished building, I presume that you are actually referring to the part-constructed retaining wall that is 'in situ' now.
I would like a copy of the 'evidence', and any supporting documentation, that was provided as 'evidence' that the retaining structure 'as is' has been in situ since 2014 ? please consider this request under 'FOI' legislation.
It is my understanding that S171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four year beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed.
The retaining wall, at the time of my complaint, and at the time of your officers' visit to the site, was still under construction, and was not substantially complete as 'evidenced, by the submitted photographs, dated 25 July 2019.
171B Time limits
(1) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed.
The retaining structure, and other unauthorised works, do not conform to the approved plans for the two storey holiday let building, so it is my opinion that the time limit should be ten years, and not four.
You state that the evidence you received means that you will not be considering further enforcement action, my argument is that the evidence provided does not meet the requirements as laid out by Section 171B of the 1990 Act.
Therefore, I presume that you will be requesting that the owners of the caravan park submit either a retrospective planning application to regularise the unauthorised development, or a CLEUD with evidence that the retaining structure was substantially completed more than four years ago.
It also needs to be established whether the retaining structure, and other unauthorised works, breach planning control, which would be subject to the ten year rule.
Your response is obviously in respect of a complaint raised by another local resident, and not me, and should not have been cross referenced as being dealt with.
I have not acknowledged that the patio extension has been dealt with as I requested that confirmation was made that the part constructed patio conformed to the approved plans, as there were deviations in details supplied to the Council such as the method of works, 'SMC', surface water disposal and materials used?
I have not acknowledged that the part completed retaining structure has been dealt with as the 'evidence' supplied, or obtained by the Council that the retaining structure has been 'in situ' for more than four years, has not been investigated, nor has a 'Certificate of Existing Lawful Use' for confirmation been issued.
I would appreciate a response to my 'Freedom of Information' request for sight of this 'evidence', as it was first requested more than 20 days ago and other than a response 'that my request is still being considered' I have not received a definitive response.
Failing to respond to my request is in breach of 'FOI' legislation, and if not responded to soon will force me to make a complaint to the ICO.
I have attached my letter to Mrs Evans outlining my reasons, why I do not considered that my enforcement complaint has been dealt with.
I would appreciate a response to my enforcement complaint, and not a 'one letter suits all' response.
Yours sincerely
Lynne Okines
From: Matthew Sawyer [mailto:Matthew.Sawyer@hastings.gov.uk] Sent: 16 May 2020 15:36To: Subject: RE: Enquiry Number: ENF/19/00306 - Subject: Erection of retaining wall, engineering works to a bank, steps and tree planting - Location: Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
Dear Sir/ Madam,
Thank you for all the details you have provided.
Sorry for the slow response. I had to take a few weeks off at late notice and I am currently the sole full time member of the team following Corona related reassignments. Although I am an experienced Planner, I also only started at Hastings on the day of lockdown, which has been far than ideal in terms of learning the systems etc. Anyway, that is the excuses out of the way. Let's get back to the case.
I have already written to the property Owner regarding the balcony inconsistencies. I expect a detailed response from them next week. Please come back to me in 7 days and I should have an update from them. The retaining wall and patio is not going to be pursued as it has already been investigated as you highlight.
Thank you,
Matt
Matt Sawyer
Planning Enforcement Officer
Housing and Development Management
Hastings Borough Council
Tel No. 01424 783255
www.hastings.gov.uk/planning
From: bob okines Sent: 11 March 2020 13:21To: Eleanor Evans <EEvans@hastings.gov.uk>Cc: Stephanie Wood <SWood@hastings.gov.uk>; Planning Enforcement <PlanningEnforcement@hastings.gov.uk>; Andrew Palmer <APalmer@hastings.gov.uk>; Information Officer <InformationOfficer@hastings.gov.uk>Subject: Enquiry Number: ENF/19/00306 - Subject: Erection of retaining wall, engineering works to a bank, steps and tree planting - Location: Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
Enquiry Number: ENF/19/00306
Subject: Erection of retaining wall, engineering works to a bank, steps and tree planting
Location: Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
Dear Mrs Evans
Please find attached a letter of response to your letter, dated 25 February 2020, in respect of the above enforcement complaint.
You state in your response to me that you have received 'evidence' that the retaining wall, referenced in this complaint, to the north-west and south-west of the two storey holiday let building has been in situ, since 2014.
Although your letter seems to refer to a previous retaining structure that serviced a bungalow that shared the same application site, situated on the south and west elevations of the now demolished building, I presume that you are actually referring to the part-constructed retaining wall that is 'in situ' now.
I would like a copy of the 'evidence', and any supporting documentation, that was provided as 'evidence' that the retaining structure 'as is' has been in situ since 2014 ? please consider this request under 'FOI' legislation.
It is my understanding that S171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four year beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed.
The retaining wall, at the time of my complaint, and at the time of your officers' visit to the site, was still under construction, and was not substantially complete as 'evidenced, by the submitted photographs, dated 25 July 2019.
171B Time limits
(1) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed.
The retaining structure, and other unauthorised works, do not conform to the approved plans for the two storey holiday let building, so it is my opinion that the time limit should be ten years, and not four.
You state that the evidence you received means that you will not be considering further enforcement action, my argument is that the evidence provided does not meet the requirements as laid out by Section 171B of the 1990 Act.
Therefore, I presume that you will be requesting that the owners of the caravan park submit either a retrospective planning application to regularise the unauthorised development, or a CLEUD with evidence that the retaining structure was substantially completed more than four years ago.
It also needs to be established whether the retaining structure, and other unauthorised works, breach planning control, which would be subject to the ten year rule.
Yours sincerely
Lynne Okines
Comment submitted date: Sun 30 Aug 2020
Please see documents tab
Comment submitted date: Mon 21 Sep 2020
Please see documents tab
Comment submitted date: Wed 30 Sep 2020
Please see documents tab.
Ms Jaki O'Dowd
Comment submitted date: Thu 03 Sep 2020
I object to this application, as this site has a history of completing work and then putting in retrospective applications. The building itself should not be there in its current form at all!
Over the years I've watched in horror and disbelief as Rocklands continue to do as they please, it's time that Planning made Rocklands comply with permissions already in place.
The building is an eyesore and visible from many parts of an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Miss Penny Beale
Comment submitted date: Fri 21 Aug 2020
I object to this application for all the reasons already stated by other objectors, plus this is becoming ridiculous as each new application seems to ride roughshod over all efforts made by the planning inspector and other planning officialdom.
It is surely time that the agreed specifications are brought into being **Comment Redacted**.
Mrs Christine Fitzpatrick
Comment submitted date: Fri 14 Aug 2020
I would like to object to this application, Rocklands have a proven track record of doing as they please then applying for retrospective planning permission, it is time that HBC required Rocklands to comply with existing regulations and recommendations that are already in place, the building is bigger than previously stated, it does not conform to any plans they have already submitted, any attempt to question these facts is met with dismissal and rank hostility it is a terrible eyesore in an area of outstanding natural beauty, and SSI , it is about time HBC got a grip on this instead of ignoring any concerns that are submitted, why have a process that asks for your opinion then blatantly ignores it claiming you are being malicious without providing any evidence to support this.
Rocklands have continued to change their planning conditions without any consultation, to allow this retrospective planning application to go ahead would be a red light to keep doing as you please.
Comment submitted date: Sat 15 Aug 2020
I would like to object to Rocklands being given any retrospective planning permission, they have a long history of non compliance with any planning regulations and continue to go ahead and flaunt any requirements that have been previously requested.
Attempts to complain about any irregularities are met with open hostility from HBC and local councillors who appear to perceive any complaints as malicious harrasssment.
It is shameful that this matter has not been settled years ago.
The current building is the wrong size, and in the wrong place, land and trees have been destroyed to enhance its views, now we are to be subjected to a request to make additional changes, when the current planning conditions have not been adhered to.
Mr Robert Hurrell
Comment submitted date: Wed 12 Aug 2020
I wish to object to this objection on the following grounds:
1. The scale of the unauthorised changes made to the building(including the changes listed in this application, plus the increased depths of the balcony and the unauthorised retaining walls and excavations under enforcement investigation) invalidates the permission granted
by the Planning Inspector.
2.The application is partial and does not cover all known issues . A fresh and full application covering all aspects of the building should be submitted once enforcement issues have been investigated and a full independent remeasurement carried out.
3. Deviations from the approved plans have been cherry picked so that the works seem 'minor' when compared to the original approval.
4. The Heritage statement refers to works that are not included in the plans.
5. Building Control has not been consulted on this application. Building control must approve the structural changes to balconies.
6. The changes to the balcony conflict with structural engineer's recommendations. The changes to fenestration conflict with building control legislation and new fire safety
regulations that stipulate that provision must be made to allow emergency escape via a window or door in all habitable rooms
7. The Ownership Certificates are incomplete. Part of the redline area is on HBC owned land and the ownership declaration must include this fact.
For these reasons and the detailed reasons given by other objections this application should be refused and a comprehensive fresh and full application submitted which covers all outstanding enforcement issues and the results of an independent remeasurement of the building.
Ms Sue Goodhand
Comment submitted date: Mon 10 Aug 2020
Over the years this has been a long saga of rocklands bending or breaking the planning rules . Then putting in retrospective applications . Its bad enough that this building was ever given permission to be there in the first place . I would at least ask that the original inspectors recommendations be kept in place .. I fear this disastrous story will never end if this building continues to make a mockery of Hastings council and planning .