HS/FA/24/00710
|
Proposed residential development for 37 no. dwellings, including the creation of a new access onto West Hill Road, the construction of new walling to West Hill Road frontage, provision of landscaping, parking, earthworks and drainage
|
123-125 West Hill Road, St Leonards-on-sea
- Total Consulted: 0
- Comments Received: 11
- Objections: 6
- Supporting: 5
-
Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 11|1|2|Next
Mr Christopher Hurrell
Comment submitted date: Thu 14 Nov 2024
I object to this application on the grounds that the stability of the site and the cliffs has not been fully surveyed.
It is proposed to defer any detailed investigations into land and cliff instability until after permission is granted and merely condition future investigations. Extensive investigations should be carried out prior to any permission being granted. Relying on conditions and subsequent discharge applications is a flawed proposal. Discharge applications are rarely subjected to the same level of scrutiny as full applications and cannot be reviewed by the planning committee. Many discharge applications are rubber stamped by delegated authority without proper scrutiny.
Land ownership and ownership of the cliff face is unclear and has not been clearly established. The applicant claims that the cliffs are owned by the householders in the houses below. No evidence has been provided.
Ownership and responsibility for cliff stability needs to be established. Previous applications have been refused due to fears of cliff instability affecting households below the cliffs. The application proposes that the householders below will be responsible for cliff stability if and when the developments on the top affect the stability.
The cliffs are outside the redline area of the development. Should subsequent geotechnical investigations find that the development will affect cliff stability than it is unclear how mitigating measures can be imposed on an area that is outside the redline area and not owned by the applicants. The HBC commissioned report by Southern Testing states that there will be logistical problems with this approach. Another reason why full and detailed geotechincal investigations need to happen before the permission is decided and not as a mitigating condition.
The newly formed HBC land stability team need to be consulted.
The applicant's geotechnical report relied heavily on a 2004 report. Much of it is speculative wishful thinking. A clear position cannot be established without a comprehensive geotechnical survey of the site and the cliffs.
The applicants own geotechnical report claims without any evidence that the development will improve the stability of the site. It is unclear how they conclude this given that the site has not been fully investigated and that pile driving and excavations could destabilise the site and the cliffs.
Comment submitted date: Wed 27 Nov 2024
Further to my previous objection concerning land instability.
This application is in breach of policy DM5 which states that :
"a. On land potentially subject to instability (such as steeply sloping sites or in areas with a history of land instability), convincing supporting evidence (from a relevant and suitably qualified professional) must be supplied before planning permission is granted."
The development site faces onto cliffs and has a history of site instability. Policy DM5 clearly states that convincing evidence must be supplied BEFORE planning permission is granted.
The application proposes to defer obtaining such evidence until after planning permission has been granted and use a condition to obtain such evidence post approval. This conflicts with the requirements of policy DM5.
The recent planning application HS/FA/24/00244 Conqueror Road https://publicaccess.hastings.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage
Included policy DM5 as a reason for refusal. The decision notice states that:
"..in this case , convincing evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that any actual or potential land instability within the site could be overcome through appropriate remedial, preventative or precautionary measures. On this basis, the proposal fails to meet the requirement of Policy DM5 ..."
The officer report for HS/FA/24/00244 states that
" Land Stability Consultant Objection raised to the development on the basis that the information provided in relation to land stability is inadequate and does not demonstrate that the proposed development will ensure the long-term stability of the slope. It is considered that 'convincing evidence' that any actual or potential instability could be overcome through appropriate remedial, preventative or precautionary measures has not been provided."
It is unclear why policy DM5 applies to the Conqueror road site and does not apply to the West Hill Road site where cliff instability is an issue.
This applicant should be refused under policy DM5 as the application has not provided convincing evidence. It is a breach of policy DM5 to defer investigations into stability by use of conditions until after the application has been approved.
Comment submitted date: Wed 29 Jan 2025
This development site has now been included in the proposed Article 4 Directive for areas of recognised land instability.
Given that HBC recognise that the site is in an area of recognised land instability should not HBC insist that ALL geotechnical surveys are carried out PRIOR to planning permission being granted?
The applicant currently proposes to carry out geotechnical surveys AFTER planning permission has been granted. This is not only foolish given the known land instability but is also in conflict with HBC planning policies.
Mr Robert Collins
Comment submitted date: Sat 11 Jan 2025
An excellent idea we fully support this development
Ms Anna Sabin - on Behalf of West St Leonards Neighbourhood Forum
Comment submitted date: Wed 13 Nov 2024
If this site is going to be built on, the builders should be required to reinstate the steps to Grosvenor Crescent so people can walk from Bo Peep to West St. Leonards Station only minimally troubled by cars.
Why, in 2024, are these houses designed with most of the ground floor wasted on a garage with bins in them?? Why should the interface with the street be blank, unsociable garage doors? Car club cars and communal bin hubs would be a much better use of space and would enable future residents to enjoy more house-space and less expensive transport.
Recessed front doors next to garage doors are miserable unwelcoming things. There'll be places of no sunlight, where no cheering geranium will thrive and it will be as difficult as you can make it to encounter a neighbour.
Why have the houses got chimneys?! Again - 2024. Air source heat pumps should be designed in, not gas boilers...wood burners? What are these chimneys for?
Comment submitted date: Mon 06 Jan 2025
I am writing on behalf of West St. Leonards Neighbourhood Forum. We are discussing the future of the Neighbourhood with hundreds (and potentially thousands) of interested residents and currently writing the West St. Leonards Neighbourhood Plan.
We have serious concerns that the ground the developer is planning to build on is not stable and we can see no plans to put in piles or retaining walls to make it stable.
The story goes that Malmsbury House, which was there from the 1880's, was demolished because the land was subsiding. And there have been five bad landslides from the same cliff within the last two years.
Without a professional design for stabilising the land and long-term insurance taken out by the developer against the land slipping in the future, WSLNF believes it would be irresponsible to allow the developers to start building.
We also would like HBC to follow through with its commitment to net zero. Road transport contributes a full third of the UK's carbon emissions plus a self-harming amount of micro-plastics from tyre dust. This planning application pays no heed to this. There is an excessive amount of outdoor space and potential living space given over to parking private cars which is the silliest form of urban transport for an overheating planet - especially in a congested part of town in which residents consider traffic a blight.
It is arguably bad luck for 2025-developers to find themselves wanting to build neither before the need to change nor after the new travel culture has taken hold. 2025 is right in the moment of change if we really are going to pursue anything like net zero by 2030 - which HBC has resolved to do.
No new development, or planning authority, in 2025 should pander to a lazy assumption that the train, reliable frequent buses, walking and cycling routes and some Co-Wheels-like car club cars can't provide as much mobility as the private car used to back in the 20th century.
If the ground stability, insurance and transport re-thinks are overcome, which we hope they are, then it would be good for new and existing residents - and for visitors arriving by train - to have a walking route through the new development from opposite St. Vincents Road southward to the cliff-edge and then down the steps between You's and the Bo Peep to the Bexhill Road zebra crossing and on to the shops and beach. This would be part of the new urban mobility infrastructure we are looking forward to.
Please - be the planning authority we want you to be.
Anna Sabin
Chair - West St. Leonards Neighbourhood Forum
Lynne Okines
Comment submitted date: Wed 20 Nov 2024
Please see documents tab
Mr Robert Hurrell
Comment submitted date: Tue 19 Nov 2024
I object to this application for the following reasons:
Cliffs are unstable. A full geotechnical survey of the cliffs is required prior to any decision being made.
Land ownership of the cliffs needs to be established.
ESCC ecologist has serious concerns and recommends refusal.
No affordable housing is to be provided
The size of the buildings is too large for the site.
Miss Michelle Mildenhall
Comment submitted date: Tue 05 Nov 2024
There is a danger of coastal erosion and I have concerns over the long term stability of the cliff. Just up the road from this area the cliff has suffered from erosion and land slides.
I worry about neighbouring properties. There will be lots of disruption and noise when building and the I worry about the light pollution in the area which is getting worst since the new digital billboards were put up(without any consultation to people in the area). We have bats in this area and I worry that their feeding habits could be put at risk. It will also effect the views of many homes and my view of the only green space that I can see from my home.
I think the area should be left as a nature reserve.
Bernard McGinley
Comment submitted date: Mon 04 Nov 2024
Please see documents tab
Mrs Dawn Wellbelove
Comment submitted date: Thu 24 Oct 2024
I am commenting as a frequent visitor to St Leonards, a potential purchaser of such a coastal property and someone who is very familiar with English Coastal developments.
Having witnessed the devastation caused by, and the danger of coastal erosion my first concern is the long term stability of the cliff. This cliff has suffered from many minor slippages over recent years and this can only be assumed to be a continuing and escalating risk. The plans comprehensively address this risk and encompass plans to improve the current stability for existing and new properties.
My second concern is road safety and this proposal offers improved access over the previous proposal
My third concern is consideration on neighbouring properties. This proposal affords respect to the immediately adjacent properties of Seaview allowing them continued space and light such that they are not overwhelmed by such a significantly large development.
Finally, and importantly the aesthetics of the development are important to the overall sense of St Leonards. This is a an imposing development, but the varying levels, the space between buildings and the high quality design will all add to it having a positive impact on the area.
I support this proposal and look forward to seeing it completed.
Mrs Diane Cheeseman
Comment submitted date: Mon 21 Oct 2024
This planning application appears to comprehensively address the applicant's intention for the development of this prominent site.
Matters such as mix of properties, design, materials, safety, cliff security and the scale of the buildings appears appropriate and feasible for this land. Providing that safety to surrounding homes and to future residents is taken seriously during construction and post development, and the characteristics of the road at the point of the entrances are recognised, I support a scheme of the nature proposed. Due consideration to neighbouring properties and owners during construction is important, as is the least intrusion to and from new homes through good planning and landscaping. If it's viable and risks are managed so as to successfully complete the scheme with minimal disruption to those using West Hill Road and residents on other roads affected, then I hope for this proposal to progress to fruition.
With sensitivity to surroundings and neighbours as proposed, this scheme has potential to eradicate the poor state of the site, including cliff stability, allowed by successive owners.
As an immediate neighbour of long standing to this land and my home overlooking it, I look forward to its successful, sensitive development.
Mr Ian Wright
Comment submitted date: Mon 21 Oct 2024
I fully support this proposal as any concerns I had, would appear to have been addressed. The applicant appears to have done a very thorough job in taking account of all considerations.
I believe the stability of the cliff has been addressed. I am pleased to note the upper access road has been moved away from the bend in the road. I like the landscape strategy, keeping areas of green open space. In recent years the land has become very unsightly with fly tipping, graffiti and very overgrown.
My address is a 2 minute walk further up the road and I can view this land from there.I walk past this site daily and would view this proposal as a high quality housing scheme in keeping with the area.
Showing 1-10 of 11|1|2|Next