Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

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
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 49|1|2|3|4|5|

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


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.

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.

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!!!

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.

Mr Paul Keats

Comment submitted date: Sun 07 Feb 2021

I object to the retrospective planning application HS/FA/20/00884 for the following reasons;
1. Hastings Borough Council (HBC) has failed in it's duty of care to comply with Policy DM3 of the Hastings Development Management Plan for protecting amenities, specifically a loss of privacy for the occupiers of 17 Martineau Lane in it's consideration for the original planning application HS/FA/17/00468.
2. HBC has not undertaken an acceptable level of due diligence to ensure planning application HS/FA/17/00468 was adhered to during the construction of the property to the rear of 23 Martineau Lane.

In reference to Point 1 above, I refer to HS/FA/17/00468-576120 of the Committee Report, Determining issues 5e - Impact on Neighbouring Residential Amenities. Policy DM3 of Hastings Development Management Plan sets policy for protecting amenity including loss of privacy . The Committee Report states, " The proposal is not considered to be harmful to the private amenity of neighbouring properties" and " the owner of No 17 Martineau Lane has written in support of this development"

At the time of the original application, the owner of No 17, a property developer, was in the final stages of an extensive redevelopment of No 17 with a view to selling the property once completed. Therefore the long term impact of the development at the rear of No 23 was immaterial to any potential future loss of personal privacy/amenity at No 17. Furthermore any objection to the development would need to be disclosed in the normal search/enquiries of the property sale process of No 17 and could feasibly detrimentally affect the sale. I appreciate HBC would not have known this at the time comments were invited.

%Comment Redacted% after HS/FA/17/00468 had been approved but prior to the initiation of any building works. Key considerations in my decision %Comment Redacted% were the planning application documents provided on the HBC Planning website, critically the viewpoint of the Committee Report, "the proposal is not considered to be harmful to the private amenity of the neighbouring properties."
The development did not start until March 2019 and took 18 months to complete. The resulting dwelling, erected by February 2020, now overlooks 100% of the south and east facing elevations and large portions of the rear and front gardens of %Comment Redacted%, directly from the 1st floor lounge & kitchen windows, external decking viewpoint and 2nd floor dorma windows of the development. This has resulted in substantial loss of both internal and external privacy to the Lounge, Kitchen, 3 of 4 bedrooms, rear, side and front aspects of the gardens at %Comment Redacted%. Photo's taken before, during and after the development have been taken and are available to illustrate the extent of the impact on the loss of privacy at %Comment Redacted%.

In reference to point 2 of this objection, the local planning authority has not undertaken sufficient due diligence measures to ensure the development complied with the original application & planning conditions. The addition of a lower ground floor games room and additional window illustrates this & as a result has further impacted on the loss of privacy at %Comment Redacted%

In reference to HS/FA/20/00884/ LANDSCAPE AND EXTERNAL DETAILS-841827.pdf, the provision of 4 x 3-4m high Acer species saplings, whilst may provide a suitable aesthetic effect, fails to provide a sufficient mitigatory solution for the loss of privacy at %Comment Redacted% in the quantity, height, density, species and seasonal variation of foliage.

I would request final consideration for the planning application to be deferred to allow sufficient onsite assessment of the resulting impact of the development on the loss of privacy and private amenity of %Comment Redacted% and neighbouring properties. Any subsequent effective measures to mitigate this impact as a condition(s) of retrospective approval would be welcome.

Showing 1-10 of 49|1|2|3|4|5|

an Idox solution