HS/FA/20/00884
|
Erection of a two to three storey detached dwelling (revision to HS/FA/17/00468) (part-retrospective).
|
Land rear of 23, Martineau Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DS
- Total Consulted: 10
- Comments Received: 49
- Objections: 46
- Supporting: 1
-
Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 49|1|2|3|4|5|Next
Mr Christopher Coombes
Comment submitted date: Mon 25 Jan 2021
*Comment Redacted*
HS/FA/20/00884 | Retrospective | Full Planning Application | Land rear of 23, Martineau Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DS
I reach out to Hastings Borough Council to Refuse the above Retrospective application and commence Enforcement.
The "Applicant" Mr. J *Comment Redacted* Pocknell, *Comment Redacted*
Why am I so aggrieved?
HS/FA/17/00468 - 2017 application to build a two-storey chalet style detached dwelling - Approved.
HS/FA/18/00267 - 2018 application to enlarge - Refused.
Instead, the Applicant decided to ignore the refusal and proceed to build the three-storey enlarged house, he so desired.
The Applicant on completing the property to his desired (unapproved) specification, now audaciously submits a Retrospective Application to formalise *Comment Redacted*
*Comment Redacted*. Planning rules, conditions, and approvals are there to ensure building design is appropriate. To take into consideration planning constraints, have proportionality to their surroundings and in this case, take into consideration the sensitivities of development that should not encroach an Area of Outstanding National Beauty (AONB).
The Applicant knows very well what he is doing and seems willing to risk building what he wants without prior approval *Comment Redacted*
*Comment Redacted*
Therefore, I put my trust in Hastings Borough Council to refuse and commence enforcement proceedings.
*Comment Redacted*
Comment submitted date: Sun 07 Feb 2021
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Tue 09 Feb 2021
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Thu 25 Mar 2021
Further to my Enforcement request Ref: ENF 19/00229, I would like to record additional points to the Planning portal.
The applicant has recently moved the Southerly rear fencing; however, the boundary remains outside the 3.5 meters tangent point from the back corner of the South facing wall and in-line with the right-hand entrance post. Therefore, the applicant is still endeavouring to infringe on the AONB. Also, the applicant has altered the Northerly boundary considerably. I allege these changes are now down to the rear garden, not adequate for the size of his finished unapproved build. I ask that the curtilage reverts to the original approved layout and size, Red Line.
I note the applicant has claimed the front verge of Mill Lane and has included this land within the Red Line curtilage. This action in no way negates the fact that the applicant felled (all but one) mature and healthy trees to provide the living room's Northerly aspect view.
The property now discharges rainwater run-off directly onto Mill Lane. There appears to be no grid between the entrance gates and no soak-away to prevent this flooding.
I am most concerned that the disabled entrance slope did not actualise and steep steps to the entrance door, now replace it. Naturally, this is a negative retrospective change from the approved design and layout and will make it impossible for a disabled person to occupy the property.
I have provided a copy of my Deeds to Planning in proof that the land is subject to historical land slippage. Mrs Eleanor Evans, Planning Services Manager, understood the dangers and stated this point in her justification to refuse the applicants application to amend. Removing the right-hand flank banking to enlarge the property has eliminated the mass's peg-anchorage benefit, the key to limiting movement.
Comment submitted date: Thu 01 Apr 2021
Please see documents tab.
Mr Christopher Hurrell
Comment submitted date: Fri 05 Feb 2021
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Tue 09 Feb 2021
I seek clarification on the claim made by former developers of the site that Planning advised them to build the games room. "The games room and 2 windows were put in as asked for by the Planners and patterned brickwork will probably be added."
Can you please conform if such advice was given by Planning to the developers.
I have had a look at the Planning History and there is no such record of any such advice being given by the Planning Department. Any such advice would conflict with the permission granted by HS/FA/17/00468. Any such advice would have been given in conflict with the refusal of HS/FA/18/00267 which explicitly refused the building of the games room and associated excavations and reprofiling of the slopes.
It is unclear when the claimed advice from Planning to build the games was given. There is no record of pre-application advice given for the original application HS/FA/17/00468 nor for HS/FA/18/00267 which sought permission to build the games room and was refused.
The full comments from former developers follow:
Regarding the above Application as far as we are informed the alterations that have been done to the property were discussed with the Planners and their input put into practice. The games room and 2 windows were put in as asked for by the Planners and patterned brickwork will probably be added. As far as the bank is concerned this was removed because otherwise vehicles would not be able to turn onto the driveway.We no longer own the land but know what is happening in respect of the build.When we did own it and sought Planning permission, about 10 years ago, there was a petition of some 110 signatures against us. At the Planning Committee Meeting the application was passed unanimously as it conformed to Planning requirements. At that time, Mr Godfrey Daniels said there seemed to b a witch hunt going on. It seems to me it has continued ever since with some original objectors. Some of the objectors have not even got their facts right.
%Comment Redacted% whose garden backs on to the site has nothing but compliments for the house and for the way the remaining land is kept.
Please log as a further objection to this application.
Comment submitted date: Fri 19 Feb 2021
I note that the application has been made with an Ownership Certificate D as the redline area includes land that is not owned by the applicant and apparently the owner of the land cannot be established with a land registry search.
It is stated in the application form that a land registry search has been made and that an advertisment for any owners of the land has been printed in the Hastings Observer on the 06/11/2020.
No supporting evidence for a land registry search or an advertisment in the press has been posted on the application website. Please post such evidence to confirm that proper process has been followed.
Comment submitted date: Mon 29 Mar 2021
Please see documents tab.
Mr Dale Barden
Comment submitted date: Wed 03 Feb 2021
It is disappointing to witness the damage this development has caused to the aesthetics of the surrounding area. The property is out of character and overbearing in comparison to the surrounding dwellings in the area. The retrospective plans outline a number of changes to the dwelling in comparison to the approved plans, all of which have been completed without permission and were previously rejected by the local planning authority. It is frustrating that previously approved aspects such as disability access via a ramp to the front door to the property has been removed, substituted for brick steps.
On the Site Location & Block Plan, Submitted 26th November 2020 the western boundary split chestnut post and rail fence should be positioned 3.6 meters from the south westerly corner of the dwelling, following the boundary of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, in is evidential in part to images advertised by PMC Estate Agents Hastings, that the fencing has been constructed incorrectly. This has increased the size of the developments footprint on the landscape but has also excessively encroached onto the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
I'd advise an on-site inspection by Hastings Borough Council and the team at the High Weald to accurately determine, and enforce the correct positioning of the boundary before progressing with a decision on this application, alongside the impact the already completed retrospective changes have made on the local area and dwelling as a whole.
Comment submitted date: Thu 25 Mar 2021
In addition to my previous comment, it is apparent from the attached aerial photography that spoil excavated from the site was not removed from the site. Instead, it was used to reprofile the surrounding landscape outside of the development boundary. This has had a significant impact on the area of outstanding natural beauty AONB, and further highlights that the development site was not fenced prior to construction commencing. Without a clear boundry between development site and AONB it has led to the mistreatment of an area that should have been protected during the construction process, not used for building machinery, material storage, spoil from excavation or vehicular access to the site.
Referring to information provided in the decision for HS/FA/17/00468 conditions were imposed to protect the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AONB and the amenity of adjoining residents, why has the applicant been allowed to not adhere to protecting and preserving the surrounding area?
**Please see documents tab for attached aerial photography**
Mr Michael Szomszor
Comment submitted date: Thu 25 Feb 2021
I object to the retrospective planning application HS/FA/20/00884 for the reasons -
The developer has %Comment Redacted%, and despite refusals, has openly proceeded with their own version of the plan, %Comment Redacted% thinking that a retrospective application would always be approved. %Comment Redacted% with the original approved plan from the very start.
No mitigating reason has ever been submitted, for a development purely made for profit with no regard, or attempt to be sympathetic with this rural setting.
This build sits high on the landscape, and stands out as a property that is out of character not fitting in with the surroundings of this rural area, which is adjacent to, and does encroach into an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
This once tree lined lane has been scarred, and blighted by this build.
The planning laws are there for a reason, and this gives the wrong message about the planning process, if allowed to proceed.
Mrs Gill Hall
Comment submitted date: Tue 23 Feb 2021
This respective planning application is firstly a severe breach of
the law.
If you pass this then why bother having planning laws.
It is an over development of the property site and clearly should be
rejected.
Eileen Swift
Comment submitted date: Mon 22 Feb 2021
I was appalled to read in HOT about the three story house that has been built in a sensitive area (next to an AONB) without planning permission.
This seems to happen regularly in Hastings and the council appears powerless (or unwilling) to stop it.
As this building has been erected in flagrant breach of planning regulations, is it possible to make the builder remove the building and restore the site to the state it was in before? If developers are allowed to ignore regulations and simply get retrospective permission after presenting the council with a fait accompli, this will never stop. Every violation in these sensitive areas eats away at our precious local resources. It enables developments for the wealthy whilst detracting from the natural beauty of the area which we can all enjoy. The status quo ante needs to be restored and the proper procedures followed. I strongly object to illegal building developments such as this one.
Mr Chris Meachen
Comment submitted date: Mon 22 Feb 2021
This developer %Comment Redacted%, & should not be permitted to escape the consequences of ignoring the planning regulations. The initial application indicated he was planning to build this development for his own occupancy, but this has clearly been constructed for the purpose of turning a commercial profit.. The structure dominates the area around it, it's scale & location clearly at odds with its surroundings, but designed to exploit the added value that the location affords in terms of its views across the sea & countryside.
The local environment needs to be protected from this kind of cynical development, & I would expect permission to be refused on these grounds, followed up with suitable enforcement.
Ms Alison Cooper
Comment submitted date: Mon 22 Feb 2021
This farce is truly unbelievable. How can you guys walk upright? What is the actually point of having rules if people can laugh in your face and just counter them with NO implications?
Then do not be surprised if nobody takes any notice of your requirements or planning principles. Don't be surprised if we get more and more tasteless blocks of architecture ruining our town. It's such a shame that not many people theses days seem to have integrity or ethics. Our surroundings are incredibly important to our mental health- otherwise why do we bother going on holiday to the sun or perfect beaches? Please make an example of these people and tell them to make it fit the agreed application. Grow some b.....s.
Mrs K Midgley
Comment submitted date: Mon 15 Feb 2021
Objection to the proposed part retrospective Planning Application HS/FA/17/00468
We have only lived in Martineau Lane for a few years and have not been part of the long list of historical applications/information with regards to the site.
Application HS/FA/17/00468 - Approved 2017 - 2 storey chalet style dwelling
Application HS/FA/18/00267 - Refused 2018
Having read through the public comments what is rather concerning is that the comments seem to imply the property built has not complied with the approved HBC Planning application, but in fact has been built to the refused application.
How does HBC Planning allow a property to be built to what seems a refused application? Surely regular inspections of the site should have recognised the issues a while ago.
It now appears that the applicant is attempting to back pedal and gain retrospective approval for a refused application, post the build of the property.
It would be poor practice for HBC to approve the part retrospective application. It would make a mockery of the planning process and encourage the abuse of 'the system' by other potential builders moving forward.
Surely rules are rules and HBC should in fact be spending their time considering planning contravention or enforcement orders, rather than part retrospective applications.
Ms Tilly Creighton
Comment submitted date: Sat 13 Feb 2021
I know a friend who lives in this street and has tried many times to stop the build that is outside of the building permission that was granted to this person.
It looks an eye from the lane and is a blatent disregard to the rules and has somehow managed to get a away with it. What happened to the set inspections that are put into place to ensure the build is going to plan that has been permitted.
This is outrageous. I have had the experience of building my own home and at each stage we were scurtinsed to make sure that we were building according to the approved plans. The Wealden district council were very strict on positioning of foundations etc for the conservation of trees and wild life.
I know from my friend that despite his constant objections to the obvious breaking of the rules of the planning permission, no action was taken to stop this home owner from doing what he pleased. In deed it appears that a blind eye to the pulling down of trees to make way for his plant machinery and the extension of the roof is just a step too far. Why was my friends attempts to stop this arrogance by the home owner not taken seriously
and proceedings taken against this man. HOW WAS THIS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN!!!
Showing 1-10 of 49|1|2|3|4|5|Next