HS/FA/22/00005
|
The enclosure of the existing pirate golf course with a part 1 part 2 storey building
|
Miniature Golf and Crazy Golf Courses on the Stade, Marine Parade, Hastings, TN34 3AG
- Total Consulted: 0
- Comments Received: 110
- Objections: 56
- Supporting: 54
-
Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 110|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|Next
Bernard McGinley
Comment submitted date: Tue 01 Mar 2022
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Fri 27 May 2022
Please see documents tab
Mr Christopher Hurrell
Comment submitted date: Sat 12 Feb 2022
I object to this application on the grounds that the proposed platform lift is inadequate and fails to conform with building control and equalities legislation. It is unacceptable that this project built on Foreshore Trust land does not include the best measures available to allow access for all.
Building regulations only allow lifting platforms in exceptional circumstances for new builds. The application does not provide such reasons It is unclear why a proper lift can't be included in the plans. I suspect that the lifting platform option has been chosen as a) it occupies less space and b) it is cheaper. Whether these grounds can be considered "exceptional circumstances" is unclear and a matter for Building Control.
HBC has to date failed to consult Building Control as a consultee on this application - an opinion is urgently required from Building Control prior to the application being decided.
Comment submitted date: Wed 16 Feb 2022
I wish to make a further objection on the grounds that the building causes harm to the conservation area as described in the HBC conservation Officer's report. The mass and bulk of the building will cause harm to the conservation area and the seafront setting - the harms to the area are not outweighed by the economic benefits. The building remains far too large and bulky and extends the building line further towards the seashore. It overshadows the children's playground and reduces the open feel of our seafront.
The economic benefits of such a large building have not been demonstrated and the building will cause substantial harm to our seafront - the seafront is our greatest tourist and economic asset.
Furthermore the design of the building and the use of materials is not of the highest quality and there are concerns that the building will rapidly deteriorate in the hostile marine environment. It is noted that the same architects were used for the Azur building - this building was poorly constructed with inappropriate materials and has deteriorated to such an extent that it is now a blot on the seafront. I fear the same may happen here.
Comment submitted date: Sun 27 Feb 2022
The latest revision of the plans makes slight reductions to the size of the second floor. However the scale and mass of the building still remains far, far too large. The revisions do not address the concerns raised by HBC conservation - including concern that building line will be advance and that this development sets a precedent for further development of 2 storey building s on the beach which will lead to degradation of the setting.
The latest revision of the plans still includes a platform lift which does not meet the minimum requirements under building regulations and the equalities act.
I hope that the members of the planning committee will read the article in the Hastings Online Times covering disabled access at the Harold Place developments. The issues also apply her. https://hastingsonlinetimes.co.uk/hot-topics/home-ground/hbc-perseveres-with-disability-discrimination-for-proposed-harold-place-restaurant/comment-page-1?unapproved=50044&moderation-hash=25e1bd46ef02297947433bf0aef7127e#comment-50044
I urge the Planning Committee to read the guidance included in the 2006 Planning and access for disabled people - a good practice guide.
HBC Planning will no doubt claim that such matters as disabled access are a matter for building control to be considered separately from the planning process. However this conflicts with the good practice guide which states that
"Too often the needs of disabled people are considered late in the day and separately from the needs of others. We want to change that. We want the needs of disabled people properly considered as an integral part of the development process......Planning officers and developers often see inclusive design as a Building Regulations issue, to be addressed once planning permission has been granted, not at the planning application stage. The various statutory functions (planning, conservation/listed buildings, highways, and Building Regulations) are often considered independently or sequentially. As a result, potential conflicts in policy objectives are not properly addressed and opportunities for delivering common, effective solutions are missed..."
It's not too late to do things properly. Building Control need to be involved and proper facilities included in this application prior to any planning decision being made.
Comment submitted date: Wed 25 May 2022
I note that the planning officer is claimed to be S Woods. Will she still be responsible given she left HBC some months ago? No doubt this is just another clerical error from our Planning department?
Where are the comments from the Foreshore Trust? I believe they should bother to respond. The Foreshore Trust has persistently and consistently failed tor respond on many applications that have affected the Foreshore. Is it not time they actually carried out their statutory responsibility to represent the public interest and actually bothered to respond in their role as a consultee?
Miss A Brimson
Comment submitted date: Mon 23 May 2022
You can't be serious on this
You will be blocking the views
It's not acceptable - use the car park you have closed in Priory meadow
The fresh air golf is the fun part of the sea front - please use the sea as an attraction and stop blocking it off please
Mrs Jill McCleod
Comment submitted date: Mon 23 May 2022
I strongly object to the proposed building on the seafront at the Crazy Golf in Hastings. The building would create a barrier between the sea and beach and the seafront. The character of the seafront would be changed.
Mrs M A Joyes
Comment submitted date: Sun 22 May 2022
Do people come to Hastings to play crazy golf? Surely they come because it is on the coast and ironically it is the coastal views that you would be losing from many other aspects of the area by allowing a 2 storey building to be erected - whatever it's function. There are other reasons to spend money in Hastings and I can't believe that families have as much disposable income as is assumed to spend. One of the fundamental attractions of golf - of any type - is that it is an outdoor pursuit!
Mr Louis Wustemann
Comment submitted date: Sun 22 May 2022
I object to this proposal. I support Hastings mini-golf, it is one of the town's most cheerful attractions. But a building adding extra (but not differentiated) refreshmemt facilities to an area that already has more than 30 within a three minute walk that need the business is not of benefit to Hastings or its visitors.
The proposal for a two-storey structure breaks the flow of buildings established in the mid 20th century of single-storey buildings on the foreshore growing to the two and three-storey seafront buildings on the seafront.
It also looks like it has been designed to a price rather than from the wish to make something special for the town and the people who come here. The mini-golf is an attraction; the building isn't.
We deserve better than this.
Mr Timothy Shepstone
Comment submitted date: Sat 21 May 2022
The scale and height of the building are inappropriate for the site. Many people want to enjoy views of the sea and this building is clearly a major obstruction to their enjoyment of this view.
N Moore
Comment submitted date: Fri 20 May 2022
I think this will cut off the views on the sea front. It is good to see people playing crazy golf and encourages others to join in.It will look like a fortress if this goes ahead.
Charlotte Bennett
Comment submitted date: Fri 20 May 2022
Please refuse - this plan will not benefit locals or tourists
Jonathan Penson
Comment submitted date: Fri 20 May 2022
I OBJECT to this application on the following grounds:
1. The design, scale, massing and materials of the building are inappropriate. The development would dominate the area, be intrusive in the landscape and on the skyline, harming visual amenity, and further aggrandise the lack of architectural congruity along the seafront. This would exacerbate the sense of careless, low-quality, piecemeal development of the seafront. As such it would be contrary to Local Plan Policies SP1 and DP1, in that it would not make a positive contribution to the quality, character, local distinctiveness and sense of place in Hastings, nor conserve its special historic and architectural character.
2. The character of this part of the seafront is of open-air, landscaped grounds, interspersed with small-scale, low key buildings, none of which is above a single story and most of which have low-profile roofs. As such it constitutes a de facto open space. This is an important aspect of the permeability of the seafront, as it allows multiple views between the sea, beach and town. A large building in this location would destroy this sense of place, creating a barrier between the sea and the seafront. In particular, the views from the western end of George St, Pelham Place and East Hill would be blocked. As such it would be contrary to SP6, in that it would severely impact on the character of the seafront and impinge on coastal views.
3. The building would also interject on views from the beach towards Pelham Place, and in particular Pelham Crescent, affecting their setting and that of the wider conservation area. The proposal would further hem in the seafront and the historic buildings along it and behind it, including the Castle. Together with the design and scale, the proposal therefore further contravenes SP6 in that it fails to protect the significance of numerous listed buildings and the conservation area.
4. The business case does not demonstrate that the anticipated increased private revenue - if it materialises - justifies setting aside policies designed to prevent harm to public amenity. Providing all-weather facilities for mini-golf is highly unlikely to prove an over-riding reason for a potential tourist to visit Hastings out of season. While visitors in town might choose to play golf as they are already in town, this would only provide extra revenue for the golf course, and not result in wider spending; indeed, the expanded catering facilities would further concentrate revenue in the facility, to the detriment of local cafes. And if the existing pool of visitors is attracted to this facility, they are not visiting other facilities. There is therefore no net increase in tourist spend, merely a reallocation. This would have a negative impact on other leisure facilities in the town, including on employment. The proposal therefore fails to meet the requirements of SP4 in that local employment will not be significantly increased, and the wider tourism sector would be negatively impacted.
5. The proposal would make the seafront as a whole less user-friendly. Pedestrians would be put off from using the route that would run alongside walls should the development go ahead, and would move to other, more amenable paths, thereby increasing congestion along them. The shared pedestrian/cycleway is already crowded, and exacerbating this would contravene DP7. Even for its users, being inside a building rather than the open air is less healthy, and therefore further contravenes DP1.
6. The site of the proposal is likely to be imminently affected by sea-level rise, and so its long-term sustainability is questionable. It does not include any flood mitigation measures, and is therefore contrary to DP4.
7. The enclosure of open space would reduce the amount of landscaping in the area, affecting amenity but also reducing biodiversity, especially the feeding and breeding grounds for insects and birds, which has a further consequences up the food chain. The proposal is therefore contrary to DP5 in that it has not considered the implications of the loss of landscaping, nor provided any mitigation.
8. The building is likely to be heated, and lit more intensively, which represents a significant increase in energy use. The proposal contains no mitigation of this, and is therefore contrary to OSP1 and DP3, in that it fails to demonstrate energy or carbon reduction or efficiency. Further, the building is likely to be illuminated at night, further impacting visual amenity as it would dominate the nightscape in this portion of the seafront, giving the impression of an industrial estate rather than a leisure ground. In relation to OSP1, and the overriding and urgent need to tackle the climate emergency, the question arises as to how necessary this building is. Its carbon footprint would be sizeable, not only in construction but also in use - does the wish to play mini-golf in slightly more comfortable surroundings justify the environmental costs?
Showing 1-10 of 110|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|Next