HS/OA/25/00219
|
Outline Permission for the erection of up to 65 dwellings (C3), public open space, sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access. All matters reserved except for means of access.
|
Open Space adjacent to Sandrock Park and North of St Helens Church including The Lodge, 309 The Ridge, Hastings
- Total Consulted: 4
- Comments Received: 908
- Objections: 898
- Supporting: 3
-
Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 908|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|Next
Mr Chris Gollop
Comment submitted date: Thu 30 Jul 2026
Understand the hydrology of the area before allowing planning.
Mr Peter Bailey
Comment submitted date: Tue 20 May 2025
Sinkholes
There is an ancient well located approximately midway between the main Coopers vet's practice and the redundant vet surgery on the edge of The Ridge by the road going down to Parchment Trust
This implies that there is an aquifer in that area which will be under the area of the proposed development. This has not been identified in the documents from the developer but must surely present a risk to any development. Placing properties above will disturb the water table there and the properties could be at risk of subsidence.
There are also sinkholes at the western end of the site close to the Ridge in the triangular area of open grass. There used to be a water pumping station there in Victorian times. The presence of these sinkholes shows that the geological hydrological nature of the site is complex, poorly understood and these aspects are certainly not addressed in the documents from the developer.
Furthermore the petrol station is close by and could be affected by changes to the hydrological nature of the land from the development and in particular from the proposed large, deep SuDS pond and thereby undermine their fuel storage tanks.
These facts of themselves require that the development proposals be rejected until ESCC have completed a detailed and thorough flood risk assessment of the site BEFORE any outline planning request is considered.
These flood risks are far too important to be considered in Reserved Matters and this request for outline planning permission must be rejected until these matters have been resolved fully.
Thank you.
Comment submitted date: Thu 22 May 2025
This development proposal fails on so many aspects.
Flood risk management
The Design and Access Statement states that "The Flood Risk Assessment includes a surface water management strategy to reduce post-development runoff rates and safeguard against any increase in third party flood risk." This statement is wholly incorrect. See more details below
Preservation of wildlife, trees and fauna
The St Helen's Woods are a fantastic asset for the Hastings and are increasingly popular. Why put them a risk of decline from this development which will surely happen if it proceeds. Put another way what benefit will there be for the Woods from this development? None. Indeed quite the reverse. HBC has a biodiversity policy. This development drives a 'coach and horses' through that. See also comments at the end of this.
Traffic flows
The proposed exit point on The Ridge is just asking for trouble. The Ridge is a heavily used road. The site sits between three side roads exiting onto it and has two sharp blind bends. Traffic flows can be very heavy. By way of a recent example was when an HBC councillor had to travel from Harrow Lane to Elphinstone Road. That journey took 45 minutes and there were no roadworks. Local residents already know that traffic flows are difficult at the best of times.
Parking
Overflow parking will definitely follow this development as has happened on so many other developments. No thought has been put into this. St Helen's Church activities will be adversely affected by this as will Parchment Trust.
Impact on local communities
The developer has made no attempt to reach out to St Helen's Church or St Helen's Park Preservation Society (ie the Woods) who are its nearest neighbours. Why not? These are the nearest to the site and most affected.
Reputational risks
Independent experts have proved that the proposed water management and flood risks assessment are just wrong. %Comment Redacted%. Surely HBC and ESCC should be looking for the highest standard of proposals?
Way forward
The Planning Committee must reject the application outright and not just defer these matters to Reserved Matters in the expectation that the developer will get these right. If they haven't got them right now then what chance they will find a proper soluton later?
If the Planning Committee approves this application then it is signing up to:
- increasing flood risks for downstream properties
- ignoring its biodiversity and green policies
- degrading St Helen's Woods
- putting neighbouring properties at risk of flooding from overtopping of the SuDS pond
- increasing traffic congestion on the Ridge
- making it much more difficult for St Helen's Church to support its own and other community activities that use its premises due to lack of available parking
St Helen's Park Preservation Society have offered to purchase the site from its four owners and develop it for greater public use. Hastings residents at large would definitely benefit from that.
---------------------------------------------
Flood risks
Independent expert hydrologists and hydrogeologists have reviewed the proposals from the developer and proved that the proposed SuDS scheme and deep borehole on the west side side will not work. The analyses from the developer are just wrong. There are countless examples where SuDS ponds fail over time including some in Hastings due to natural silting up and, as important, lack of maintenance. Problems arise when it is too late after a development has been completed. Why even consider this development when it is clear that the flood risk management will not work? That would be utterly irresponsible.
Moreover the geology of the site is complex. The impacts from the SuDS pond and deep borehole are not properly understood but will have disastrous consequences both on local properties, wildlife and the woods as predicted by experts. There are already sinkholes on the site.
As things stand currently the 'lush' and biodiverse east side of the site provides the perfect means of storing and moderating the flow of rainwater. The water flows down and to the west onto the grassy area on the east of the site and beyond. The biodiverse area acts as a sponge for the water absorbing it during high rainfall and allowing it to disperse gradually onto the surrounding land - down and to the west.
Currently during periods of high rainfall the excess water flows not only down the escarpment into St Helen's Woods but also along The Ridge westwards to the top of St Helen's Park Road and onto the petrol station. Ask any local resident what happens when it has been raining heavily. The water floods along The Ridge westwards and down St Helen's Park Road. The latter has obvious evidence of scouring which gets worse every year.
The proposals intend for all this water to be held in its SuDS pond close to properties in Sandrock Gardens and nearby.
The deep borehole in the SuDS pond will divert water away from the upper part of the woods depriving them of a vital water supply and potentially weaken the geological strata there which could in turn lead to landslips. Witness the landslips at Shearbarn and Rosetta Gardens from just such a situation from boreholes. The SuDS pond will inevitably silt up and then overtopping of water will flow into nearby properties.
Building 65 houses on the site with a disproven SuDS scheme and deep borehole will not work and will change the delicate balance of underground acquifers and soil strata forever. The Design and Access Statement states that "This [the FRA] includes a surface water management strategy to reduce post-development runoff rates and safeguard against any increase in third party flood risk." It is clear that this statement is wholly incorrect.
Wildlife
There is a natural and wide wildlife corridor going from the Woods north onto the Sussex Weald. The site has a very rich and diverse wildlife as proven by expert ecologists. This will be utterly destroyed by this development. The development proposes a 1.5 metre wide corridor which is laughable and as good as sealing off the Woods. There is also a mature hedge on the east side which HBC's arborist has stated should be retained but the development plans have this marked for total removal. Then of course numerous trees (44 proposed) are to be removed which will have a significant impact on the water retention profile of the site.
The issues with the drainage strategy are two-fold. Firstly, the implications of relying upon a strategy based on the creation of deep boreholes are poorly understood. The strategy could lead to greater surface water flows and increased flooding or, conversely, surface water could be directed away from the ponds within St Helen Wood resulting in the degradation of the aquatic habitat.
Finally let's not forget the Japanese knotweed on the site which the developers have conveniently overlooked!
Comment submitted date: Fri 23 May 2025
Please see documents tab (Please note the petition is split into 2 separate documents)
Comment submitted date: Thu 12 Feb 2026
Access
1. The traffic survey done by the developers was on a weekday evening AFTER the rush hour and recorded only120 approx vehicle movements in an hour.
We have done an informal traffic survey on a recent weekday morning between 08.00 and 08.30 and recorded almost 800 traffic movments.
Therefore the traffic movement data from the developers is disingenuous at best and frankly very misleading. It needs to be done at weekday rush hours
Furthermore it does not take into account proposed further housing developments on the north side of the Ridge between Sandrock Bends and Conquest Hospital (area governed by Rother Council) which will increase further the traffic movments on the Ridge
The site is between two sharp bends which are a short distance apart. The exit from the site is immediately after the bend on the west side. Even with the extended lines of sight (therefore loss of more trees by the way) the traffic movements from the site will aggravate significantly congestion and risks of accidents.
2. The proposed uncontrolled pedestrian crossing points by Sandhurst Gardens will be very dangerous to use by pedestrians with traffic not only coming along the Ridge but also traffic emerging from the two side roads there and also from the garage. This is a narrow fast section of road. The proposed housing development will encourage more pedestrian movements around Sandrock Bends which will be very foolhardy and dangerous.
Comment submitted date: Thu 12 Feb 2026
Hastings Council land
Hastings Council own part of the land at the site. They require that their part of Sandrock Bends should be retained for leisure use and not used for housing. Yet that part Sandrock Bends is to be designated as a large SuDS pond which will deny this facility. Surely HBC cannot allow that?
Comment submitted date: Thu 12 Feb 2026
Flooding
East Sussex Flood Risk Authority have stated that outline planning permission should not be granted until their concerns about lack of capacity in Southern Water's systems and flood risk are resolved. Independent hydrologists have stated that the proposed housing development will increase flood risk greatly. The latest responses from the developer do nothing to alleviate that flood risk.
The independent technical hydrological data shows very clearly that the site has a big impact on the downstream land and any disturbance to its current structure will damage the downstream hydrology which in turn will affect downstream properties. The site is on impervious sandstone which has fissures in it. The water flows through these fissures are complex and not well understood hence why there are springs lower down in the Woods where these fissures emerge.
The independent hydrological data shows clearly that any housing development will impact significantly downstream properties far beyond the immediate vicinity of the site.
If planning permission is granted will the Council be prepared for any legal actions from resulting damage to downstream properties. As proof of flooding there is already flooding happening in properties in the adjacent Sandrock Gardens.
With climate change the increase in water landing on the site will increase. Furthermore new properties there will consume more water which in turn has to be taken away from the site somehow into already overloaded drainage systems. Currently water and sewage are already flowing downsream into the Woods which is an area much used by the public.
The proposed development will not benefit Hastings in the long term but will create more environmental flooding problems in the centre.
Every little land infill development away from the centre of town and uphill from it contributes to the flood risks especially in the centre, having regard to the topology and hydrology of Hastings. Sandrock Bends is at the top ie on the Ridge. The additional flood risks from developing it will be felt over a wide area downstream.
There needs to be a broader assessment of flood risks around Hastings and not just on a site by site basis. What steps are the planning committee and Council taking to address these risks.
Comment submitted date: Thu 12 Feb 2026
Alternative use for the site
The St Helen's Park Woods have already made an offer for the site and want to turn it into one of a community value.
Surely that would make much better use of the site as it naturally links with the Woods below which are increasingly being used for leisure activities.
Then the site along with Alexandra Park would make an attractive green corridor which in turn would be a good feature to attract visitors to Hastings and therefore benefit the local economy.
Comment submitted date: Thu 12 Feb 2026
Ecology and Biological Net Gain (BNG)
The latest proposals do nothing to address the concerns of the Ecological Impact Assessment from the County Ecologist.
The presence of knotweed on the site is denied when there is clear independent evidence that it is present there and in many places.
The BNG shows a LOSS of 29% which is contrary to planning policy when a positive gain needs to be demonstrated.
The existing hedge in the centre of the site is a critical feature which County Ecologist requests that this stays
The development fails to safeguard the adjacent St Helen's Woods and is therefore contrary to policy EN5 of the Hastings Planning Strategy
Overall, the development proposals make little concession to any ecological impact and make no ecological improvememts
Comment submitted date: Fri 24 Jul 2026
Please see documents tab (additional pages for petition originally submitted on 23/05/2026)
Jeremy Bunday
Comment submitted date: Thu 22 May 2025
Planning Application HS/OA/25/00219 - Development of 65 Dwellings at Sandrock Bends, Hastings
Objection : New access point on the Ridge and it's impact on the local community and within the site itself
I object to this application on the following grounds;
1. The Ridge (B2093) is the major highway moving East - West along the coast and is continually subject to high volumes of traffic and the smallest hold up causes long queues and delays for all users of the road, both business and residential. Vehicles and cyclists entering and leaving this access point will result in further congestion
This particular stretch of the Ridge (B2093) from the Service station to Stonestile Lane is already recognised as an high risk section as proved by the regular placement of mobile safety cameras to reduce speed. The speed enforcement programme appears to have little impact with vehicles regularly breaking the speed limit.
There are regular accidents along this stretch and the application has sought to minimise these by only recognising Personal Injury accidents and not including those only having property damage. I have personal knowledge of an accidental damage accident which is not included for example.
The section of the Ridge affected by this development measures approximately 500 metres and already has;
- 5 access roads (Sandrock Park, Sandhurst Gardens, Stonestile Lane (incl access to Conquerors March restaurant), Chowns Hill and the track to Friary Gardeners) for which there are already queues to enter and leave at all times of the day
- A service station
- 2 Care Facilities
- A church hall (community facility)
- A charity run garden centre
- A veterinary practice
Can we really accommodate yet another access point?
2. The plans do not address the letter from HBC Planning dated 5th August 2022 as below;
m) be supported by a Transport Statement and Travel Plan. The Transport Statement must take account of the site's proximity to the Ridge. Proposals must indicate how the conclusions and recommendations of the Statement have been incorporated within the development. This is likely to require improved access to the site and to include transport improvements on the the Ridge as advised by the Local Highway Authority.
n) ensure vehicular access to the site is agreed with the Highways Authority; this may involve use of a single principal access to the allocation SH1 or by separate means; should no separate access to the Southern part of the site by practicable to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority, access through the main, larger part of the site would not be unreasonably withheld;
- There is no recognition of the impact on the Ridge, the Transport and Travel reports merely produce a series of numbers that don't on the face of it stack up with actual traffic volumes.
Equally there is no attempt to address access from the South of the site or to identify transport improvements. The Transport and Travel plans merely seek to convince that everyone will walk or cycle!
Access from the entrance to the vets would enable use of an existing access point to the Ridge
Failure to address these points should result in the application being rejected.
3. The Access indicates that visibility along the Ridge would be 43m with a 2.4m wide pathway shown, however the Transport Assessment confirms the pavement is only 1.5m wide. This discrepancy will reduce that visibility - by how much?
a. Notice should also be taken of estimated stopping distances which state
i. 30mph is 23m but at 35mph that increases to 39m
ii. This takes no account of the impact of wet conditions or the fact that cars travelling from the East are accelerating having come round a sharp bend and this will impact stopping distances
iii. As already noted, no recognition is made of the fact that this is already recognised as a dangerous stretch of road as evidenced by regular positioning of a Highway Safety Camera at the junction of Sandhurst Gardens and the Ridge.
iv. Vehicles travelling East to West are already accelerating as they come round the sharp bend immediately before this access and stopping time will be impacted by having to change to braking at short notice.
Is it even safe for motorists, cyclists or pedestrians to have an access point along this stretch?
4. The proposed access point requires at least 10m (width of the access road) section of mature trees to be removed and presumably more to accommodate clear vision along the Ridge. These trees are considered moderate by the plan - does the town's arbologist agree?
This access point also enters at a point which requires destruction of the vital hedgerow that divides the site, further impeding the migration of wildlife from the Weald to St Helen's Woods and should be rejected as noted by the town's arbologist in his submission
There are two different versions of the layout, one shows a single crossing of the Public Right of Way (PROW) and the other two breaks. Why should we have 2 breaks in about 50m to simply allow even more dwellings?
Whilst the plan acknowledges the PROW it does not address that the plan breaks this important ancient track (incidentally this is also the route of the main water main - is this going to be damaged by the road building, is it safe to have continual traffic crossing a water main?).
This PROW serves to keep pedestrians off the narrow pathway along the Ridge and any break in the PROW should be managed by a pedestrian crossing to retain the correct right of way.
Given the inherent dangers to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians in this plan and the inconsistencies in the documentation and the failure to address key questions regarding an access point I would urge you to reject this application.
Comment submitted date: Thu 22 May 2025
Planning Application HS/OA/25/00219 - Development of 65 Dwellings at Sandrock Bends, Hastings
Objection : Suggested Installation of SuDS Basin and Deep Borehole
ESCC is the designated Flood Risk Authority.
In line with advice received from the Environment Agency, ESCC generally oppose the use of deep-bored soakaways as a means of managing surface water drainage on developments. The reasoning for this opposition is two-fold.
1. The increased risk of groundwater contamination due to direct discharge of waters into groundwater.
2. The potential impact on local groundwater levels and flows which can increase the likelihood of groundwater reaching the surface (and potentially increasing flood risk).
ESCC recommend that deep-bored soakaways are used as a last resort where the ground conditions are suitable, and the groundwater levels are known. The County Council requires that the following criteria are met when deep bored soakaways are proposed:
- Investigations showing there are no other alternative surface water destinations.
- The depth of the system should be no deeper than what is required for soakage.
- A minimum of two water treatment stages using SuDS measures must be provided upstream of the soakaway.
- An unsaturated zone must be provided below the base of the structure. There should be a minimum of 10m between the base of the structure and recorded maximum winter groundwater level.
In particular this area is saturated in the winter so the SuDS cannot meet the 10m requirement.
The proposed SuDS does not address this policy failing to address the points above.
For this reason I believe this application should be rejected.
HBC's Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 31-10-2024 states:
6.3 Infiltration SuDS Specific to Hastings
6.3.1 Across Hastings, the nature of the soil, subsoil and underlying strata makes the disposal of runoff to groundwater by means of SuDS incorporating soil infiltration processes a very challenging proposition. Whilst the BGS infiltration SuDS suitability mapping suggests that some areas of the Borough may be suitable for bespoke infiltration techniques, this is countered by BGS Geohazard and Bedrock Geology mapping which suggests infiltration is not a viable option across the vast majority of the Borough.
6.3.2 Due to the impact of infiltration on slope stability and the risk of landslides, any discharge into the ground in areas at the top of escarpments, cliffs, valleys, ledges, ridges or other steep geological features should be avoided even if bespoke solutions may be possible. This includes limiting discharge within transportation corridors to protect surrounding infrastructure.
For this reason alone, planning application proposal HS/OA/25/00219, which relies on a SuDS system on this site, and indeed any other planning application which relies on SuDS drainage there, must be rejected.
The proposed SuDS is large although there is conflicting information in the application as to the depth of the SuDS basin.
The basin is stated as being an area of 0.159 hectares which equates to 1,590 square metres(BNG Metric). To put this into perspective the swimming pool at Summerfields is 25m by 15m or 375 square metres. This basin will have surface area over 4 times larger than that pool.
The depth of the pond is stated as being 0.6m deep but in the Flood Risk Assessment (part 2 page 3) using height contours this is between 1.4m and 1.7m deep. This would mean that when full this SuDS basin would hold 2.7m litres of water (approximately 600,000 gallons).
There is no evidence that consideration has been given to the impact of building a new access road on the Ridge as even now water runs at speed down the road when there is heavy rainfall and this water will flow directly on to the green area and into this SuDS basin.
The SuDS will take all the water that would naturally flow off the Southern edge of this area of green land in to the woods and concentrate it in the Western point of the site. Should the SuDS fail then this water will flow across the Public Right of Way (possibly making it impassable) and down through Sandrock Park into St Helens Wood Road and then at speed into St Helens Woods potentially overloading the natural drainage and causing irreversible damage.
With respect to the use of a deep borehole there is a claim that drilling has identified a fissure in the bedrock which they plan to push all the water into, however;
- There is no information to suggest that this fissure is large enough to cope with the volume of water. Only tested with 100 litres of water
- This water would enter this fissure under pressure due to the weight of water risking either
o Washing away the layer of permeable bedrock and potentially causing landslips or subsidence in the local area
o Reaching more solid rock and being forced upwards to the surface
o Causing landslips
- A borehole this deep will be lower than the high point of the Ridge meaning this fissure could direct water in any direction
o Could flow towards the Sandhurst playing fields
o Towards the garage potentially putting at risk the integrity of their fuel storage tanks
o East or West under existing housing or under the new houses this is designed to protect
o South in a fast flowing stream into St Helens Woods and onwards to the town centre.
This area of land already has an increasing number of sinkholes and these fill with water in the wetter months.
Is it even safe to consider putting a SuDS in an area that is unstable and known to have aquifers?
There is no information as to whether this SuDS is designed to be dry or to be a pond.
If this is a pond then what measures exist to ensure there is no safety risk for people or animals?
If designed to be dry then whenever there is rain this area will be wet and boggy and certainly would not contribute to an improved green space for the community as is claimed in the BNG report.
Considerations of maintenance are dismissed with reference to appointing a maintenance company to oversee the SuDS with costs having to be borne by the owners of the new houses. The internet has many reports of this maintenance work not being carried out, done badly or residents being forced to pay ever increasing costs to protect their property from poorly designed and built flood protection defences, let's not have Hastings become another one.
In light of all the above, before considering such an ill-conceived and dangerous proposal the council should at the very least secure an indemnity bond against the potential risk to anything below or in the path of this SuDS basin, and better still - for the sake and safety of Hastings, - reject Planning Application HS/OA/25/00219 and any other planning application which proposes a SuDS system at Sandrock Bends.
Comment submitted date: Fri 23 May 2025
Please see documents tab
Comment submitted date: Fri 23 May 2025
Planning Application HS/OA/25/00219 - Development of 65 Dwellings at Sandrock Bends, Hastings
Objection : Travel Plan
The Travel Plan Framework appears to be based entirely on providing a travel pack to residents encouraging them to walk or cycle as alternatives to driving. This to be delivered by a Travel Co-ordinator for an unspecified time and cost. Totally inadequate!
The plan quotes many statistics about how most trips are carried out on foot for distances of less than a mile but they also quote in 4.2.6 that walkable neighbourhoods are characterised by having a range of facilities within 800 metre (0.5 mile) but then proceed to base their core analysis on the 2 km radius. All this discussion completely ignores the topography of the surrounding area which is characterised by steep hills in most directions. These hills will undoubtedly reduce the likely walking distance and negate many of the claims in their documents.
How many people do they seriously suggest will walk up Elphinstone Road from the town centre carrying shopping for example? In reality minimal and for the same reason most people will not feel able to walk to many of the facilities highlighted.
Section 4.2.14 refers to a Moss Side boundary, which definitely doesn't exist in this area so suggests this pack is a simple copy and paste exercise where they haven't made any reference to the local area, perhaps this explains the lack of knowledge of the area around Sandrock Bends.
The document glosses over the fact there is no doctor surgery ( surgery and pharmacy are put together on the illustration to obscure this fact).
The location of key facilities such as supermarkets are outside sensible walking distance and suggesting the use of convenience stores is an expensive option and works against the intent to provide affordable sustainable housing.
The walking distance documentation is all based on walking distance to a destination and don't appear to recognise the requirement to return - suggesting it is OK to walk a mile to a shop and then return carrying the actual shopping - is this really believable?
Table 4.2.19 claims that a nursery school is within 3.2 km at just 1.4km. This would require walking down Elphinstone Road and back up the hill at the end of the day - not likely to be feasible for toddlers. First Steps Nursery is also listed - this is limited to NHS staff only.
Presumably this document has been produced purely from a desk using google maps as a search for facilities, how can anyone take these documents seriously when such obvious facts are being missed.
Sandown Primary School is listed at 1.8km - can we really expect 4 year old children to walk that far along the busy Ridge road, the risks to health from traffic pollution and potentially accidents must be unacceptable.
Turning now to cyclists where once again the topography is ignored they blithely state that it is now much safer due to the changes in the Highway Code, accepted this is probably true but is encouraging cyclists on to the main East West coastal highway with its incessant traffic flow is going to generate even further traffic congestion on the Ridge which is already routinely subject to delays which will only get worse. This will drive further frustration on the part of drivers with the consequent risk to cyclists that impatience causes accidents.
The overarching conclusion that the proposal will provide a highly sustainable development and should be acceptable to the local highway authority appears to have been completed as a desktop exercise, is not supportable in reality recognising the geographical challenges and the paucity of close key facilities.
For this reason this application should be rejected as it casts doubt on the assumptions made in the access proposal that incremental traffic flow is minimal.
Comment submitted date: Mon 02 Feb 2026
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Metric
FAILURE TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS THAT CAN BE REVIEWED AND, THEREFORE, COMMENTED ON
The developer has submitted a spreadsheet to support calculations which has hidden columns and sheets which have been protected.
These hidden areas of the spreadsheet need to be visible to ascertain how the developer has arrived at the BNG values as the formulae refer to these areas.
The developer must submit an open version that allows for proper consideration and comment.
I would contest that this application cannot be considered until the developer has provided us with a usable spreadsheet and that we have the 21 days to review and challenge and comment on it.
This failure on the part of the developer has also been raised directly with the HBC planning department and their response is awaited.
Comment submitted date: Mon 02 Feb 2026
OBJECTION TO GRANTING ACCESS FROM THE RIDGE
Whilst the new Highways Technical Note attempts to address the points raised in the objection comment from Highways there are still numerous unanswered elements and risks in the document provided.
ESC1 - submits new visibility diagram but fails to mention that this will require removal of more green space and trees to facilitate, further worsening the BNG loss which already stands at a significant 30%. It also fails to mention the drainage that already occurs from the site on to the Ridge which will be worsened by the removal of the existing retaining wall.
The drawing is at such a small scale that it is impossible to determine whether the Eastward visibility has actually achieved 70m and the developer should be required to provide a document that can be assessed accurately. We cannot just assume they are correct! It is very tight.
The plan assumes that cars will come to a halt at the very edge of the access road. Given the nature of the Ridge road and large vehicles passing this point it is unlikely that cars will come that close and the new visibility splays should take this into account.
Vehicles travelling West have to negotiate a corner which is already troubled by deep potholes which keep reoccurring despite being regularly filled in. Is it reasonable to assume that drivers will be able to come safely to a halt within 70m when their attention is forced to the nearer hazard of regular potholes along this section of the road?
Given the regular speeding along this stretch of road (evidenced by the regular placement of mobile speed camera) is 70m sufficient? This distance is, after all, the minimum stopping distance in wet conditions.
Consideration must again be given to the safety risks inherent in adding yet another access point to the Ridge.
I would submit that this is not a safe place to join the Ridge road which is now part of the main East to West Coast Road carrying business traffic to and from the port of Dover.
Comment submitted date: Mon 02 Feb 2026
OBJECTION TO NEW ACCESS ROAD ON TO THE RIDGE
ESC2 - Notes that a Road Safety Audit has been carried out.
The survey itself is inadequate and does not provide any certainty as to the safety of this proposed access to the Ridge.
The survey was carried out on 17th April between 18:40 and 19:10 in dry conditions and notes that traffic was relatively light and there was no sighting of pedestrians or cyclists. In addition there were significant diversions around Hastings at this time due to the works on the A21 junction which will have impacted traffic volumes as the diversion took vehicles away from the Ridge
It appears that the timing of this audit has been calculated to ensure light traffic and getting dark there is much less chance of seeing pedestrians on this pavement (it is very narrow and in my experience frightening to walk this path) or cyclists on a road littered with potholes.
Surely an RSA must be done over a range of days and times to truly be of use in assessing Road Safety?
The developer should be required to do an extensive audit rather than a weak and feeble tick box exercise.
In addition the RSA refers to a review of personal injury collisions in the area. This appears to be an attempt to minimise the data as by definition this will exclude any information related to collisions that do not have a report of personal injury.
The developer should be required to extend the audit to cover all aspects of road safety and not just the bare minimum, hoping the absence of relevant other collisions will not be noticed.
No consideration of access should be considered until a full and detailed Road Safety Audit is submitted for consideration.
Comment submitted date: Tue 03 Feb 2026
OBJECTION TO NEW ACCESS ROAD TO THE RIDGE
ESC3 - Application states that the swept path confirms a 12m rigid truck can turn out of the access. Their drawing no 3607-F01 REV C shows this is not the case. Therefore they have not resolved this objection satisfactorily.
ESC4 - refers to the road gradient and their response is that this will be dealt with at the detailed design stage. It refers to 3607-F01 REV C but this is merely words on the diagram and nothing has been provided to show that the requirements can be met. Therefore this requirement is not met and furthermore this should not be dealt with later as it is fundamental to whether access should be allowed if they can't demonstrate this adequately.
Comment submitted date: Tue 03 Feb 2026
OBJECTION TO TRAVEL/TRAFFIC PLANS
ESC8 - They have accepted the requirement to provide a bus service contribution. The required contribution seems very low. How can £93k be said to support the provision of bus services over a period of time? Surely this should be a more significant contribution.
ESC9 - They accept their wording in incorrect but fundamentally fail to address that even a combined journey to the stations would likely take in excess of 30 minutes and completely fails to recognise that the topography makes it even less likely that people could do the return journey. Particularly the case in the evening as the bus service frequency drops off. The overall statement is still misleading in respect of train travel
ESC10 - It is debatable whether the trip indicators exist but in their response they have identified 8 largely trivial "opportunities" to improve journeys for pedestrians. Point 3 is addressed in a separate objection
Comment submitted date: Tue 03 Feb 2026
OBJECTION TO ACCESS ON TO RIDGE AND NEW UNCONTROLLED CROSSING
ESC11- The new uncontrolled pedestrian crossing referenced will be in a dangerous location and I believe this will create risks to pedestrians and other road users.
The crossing is positioned between 3 access points on to the Ridge. The average speed on this road already requires drivers to accelerate quickly onto the Ridge road and at the same time there would then be the risk of a pedestrian trying to cross the ridge causing emergency breaking and increasing the likelihood of vehicle collisions.
THIS IS NOT A SAFE PLACE TO PUT A CROSSING.
Drawing also shows the addition of a 2m wide pavement in Sandhurst Gardens reducing the width of the road in an unacceptable way. This would also inhibit the placement of mobile cameras at this location which are very necessary to even keep speeds below 40 on this stretch.
Comment submitted date: Sun 08 Feb 2026
OBJECTION TO ACCESS
ESC6 - On the basis that the application is submitted for access surely the applicant should have to provide all relevant information to support that they can manage the creation of the access and ongoing building work should planning permission be granted.
The revised access point will require significant removal of existing green space and restrictions to use of the Ridge road to the detriment of many thousands of people who use this road.
Let's understand how they are going to manage it without recourse to the standard development approach of sending someone to stand in the middle of the road to stop traffic.
Please require that all of this information is provided now and is adequate. After all this road is now the main East - West highway along the coast.
Comment submitted date: Sun 08 Feb 2026
OBJECTION TO ACCESS
ESC12 - The document does not answer the objection raised by Highways but instead uses weasle words such as "It is assumed" and "it is considered highly unlikely". These answers simply suggest they have not done any research to come up with proper answers so are hoping to get away with not answering.
ESC13 - As previously noted they say they will look at this at Detailed Design stage, again they will need to impact the main road to deliver this and should be required to answer the question of how they will do the works.
ESC15 - Resurfacing of the PRoW will be dealt with at Detailed Design stage. The requirement to widen the pavement along the Ridge will require the existing pavement to be closed forcing pedestrians and possibly cyclists to use the PRoW to move along the Ridge. The existing path is not suitable for mobility scooters for example so there must be commitment to do this work and the standards and size of the path addressed.
The objection from the Sussex Ramblers should be noted at this time as well in terms of those requirements which are almost certainly not reflected in the Design and Access statement at the correct widths.
Once again the applicant needs to be upfront about how they will deliver this before access is considered.
Comment submitted date: Sun 08 Feb 2026
OBJECTION TO ACCESS
ESC20 - Whilst the applicant has noted this comment there is a wider question. Given this is outline and the volume of housing could be changed why is there no requirement for an assessment to be carried out against a maximum to ensure that the access is considered against a worst case scenario rather than a non binding housing commitment that will inevitably understate the traffic impact.
This should be required or at least Highways should consider the risk of an access being designed that doesn't reflect likely impact.
Surely stress testing of any application should be a given?
ESC21 - Given the amount of building giving access to the Ridge since 2022 surely it is no longer appropriate to use observed flows from this time and a requirement should be to do this as of now.
Please give due consideration to the increased demand for this road before accepting more demand based on outdated analysis.
Comment submitted date: Sun 08 Feb 2026
OBJECTION TO ACCESS
The response to ESC22 - It is noted that none of these planning applications are dated after 2021. Is it really the case that no other planning applications since then have added to the traffic levels on the Ridge Road?
Equally what about Rother planning applications that have access points to the Ridge. Surely these need to be included in any analysis?
Additionally the draft Rother local plan includes 2 potentially significant developments which will further add to the issues on the Ridge.
These factors may considerably change this analysis for 2031 casting doubt on the usefulness of this data.
Gladman's response - we'll encourage people to walk, cycle or catch the bus - not an answer.
Comment submitted date: Mon 09 Feb 2026
Flood Risk Objections
1. Objection to flood risk being deferred to a later stage
- Water from roads to the East of the site pours on to the Ridge Road and then flows East to West along the Ridge regularly overfilling the drains. The design proposed for the access requires a gradient that will ensure that this surface water will flow through the site and flood until drainage plans are implemented. This failure to manage interim flooding could have significant impact on St Helen's Woods as the land will not be able to absorb additional water.
It already becomes sodden with very little rainfall and it would be reckless to just drain further foul water through into the woods.
- Southern Water have made it clear that there is inadequate capacity to manage additional surface water run-off, Given it is clear that additional surface water cannot be dealt with why is there consideration of making the situation worse longer term and indeed short term while the access point would be created?
2. The revised document ignores the comments made by Southern Water and the Flood Risk Authority or indeed those raised by the independent experts and submitted in VRG objection in support of St Helen's Woods. All available to be read on the planning portal
- No consideration should be given to creating an access point until the serious questions asked by these experts have been addressed.
3. The current proposal suggests all overflow water will be discharged through a surface water sewer, which already overflows on regular occasions.
- This surface water will in many respects already classify as Foul water as it will include any pollutants from the roads and hard surfaces in the development.
4. The proposal retains the requirement to pump sewage and surface water from the South of the site, Southern Water have objected to this. No consideration appears to have been given to the impact on the many protected animals in the vicinity or to potential noise and smell issues for adjacent houses.
What happens if the pump station malfunctions, where does this sewerage and surface water go, down into the woods creating further risk to the woods and the town itself
The applicant must be required to address these issues before access can be considered.
Comment submitted date: Mon 09 Feb 2026
Objection to Access
Access to the site is being requested based on an outline plan of 65 properties.
All the transport data has been calculated on this basis, what is to stop a full application increasing the number of properties and thereby rendering every calculation in the application incorrect.
How can access be considered on this basis without consideration as to a worst case scenario and it's impact on the roads.
Can't we, at least, look at realistic use cases rather than optimistic analysis from a report which will inevitably be slanted to encourage approval?
Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Feb 2026
HS/OA/25/00219
Objection to use of SuDS
Whilst the concept of Sustainable Drainage Systems may be established and seen to be a good solution the reality of SuDS is far from this idealistic view.
There are many articles written and available to view on the internet regarding the challenges of SuDS, many of these issues could impact this planning application and are summarised as follows:
MAINTENANCE "LIMBO" across the South East of England.
Many SuDS in the South East are managed by private companies rather than being adopted by local authorities. This creates risk where, if a management company goes into administration, the SuDS is left unmaintained eventually failing to deliver their flood-protection and water management functions.
This is the model Gladman are proposing for their application and provides no long term protection to the owners of these houses in terms of management charges and no protection to anyone who lives downhill from the site of this SuDS. Given the whole of Hastings sits below where this SuDS will be located this presents an unacceptable risk to the Town and affected householders.
No management company would be in a position to accept this risk, they will simply go into administration leaving the town unprotected.
If the Council is minded to accept this application the Council must adopt the SuDS and ensure that the developers pay sufficient funds to the Council, up front, to manage the facility.
FAILURE TO ENSURE THE TOWN IS PROTECTED WOULD BE RECKLESS AND PROBABLY NEGLIGENT particularly as the Council will not be able to say they weren't aware of this risk.
INAPPROPRIATE SYSTEM CHOICE
In Kent there have been criticisms of using soakaways on clay surfaces. The BGS website shows this area to primarily defined by the Hastings Beds subgroup comprising an upper layer of fine grained sandstones also known as Sandrock, a further layer of Wadhurst Clay and at it's deepest levels silty sandstones.
Further investigation shows that the critical risks associated with this geology are;
LANDSLIDE and SLOPE INSTABILITY caused by drainage being blocked by the clay layers
FOUNDATION AND SUBSIDENCE ISSUES - The Wadhurst clay layers can be subject to damage if moisture levels fluctuate significantly. This application talks about deep borehole soakaways (20m+ deep) with no understanding of the geological layers they will pour this high volume of water into. Additionally the nature of the clay parts of this area make it unsuitable for soakaways creating higher risk of surface flooding
ENVIRONMENTAL - It is recognised that digging foundations can alter natural underground water flow which could, inadvertently, cause instability in neighbouring areas or damage local habitats such as St Helen's Woods
OVERSIGHT - Ineffective site management and oversight by the local authority both at the construction phase from poor quality construction or failure to clear debris and post completion to ensure commitments are adhered to. This point also comes back to the need for the Council to adopt any SuDS to prevent the risk of the developer or maintenance going in to administration to avoid the costs of remediation.
It is clear from the above that there has been limited thought applied to how a SuDS would work in this location, not just at development but over the life of the development - how long is that? 50 years?
HASTINGS BOROUGH COUNCIL - Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2024-10-31 states in relation to SuDS that:
6.1.4 As part of any SuDS scheme, consideration should be given to the long-term maintenance of the SuDS to ensure that it remains functional for the lifetime of the development. This is not addressed in the application
6.1.8 the feasibility of SuDS or proposed drainage is dependent on the presence of groundwater which may impact drainage even where groundwater flooding is not predicted to occur. This means that the high level of groundwater can still render infiltration-based Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)-like soakaways, permeable paving, or infiltration basins-ineffective or unfeasible. This site already floods under heavy rainfall and has done for a number of years with streams flowing over the PRoW into the road towards Sandrock Hall
6.2.3 However, the use of infiltration techniques throughout the Borough has been particularly challenging and this is therefore something that ESCC would like to avoid where possible. If infiltration is to be proposed, ESCC would expect to see significant justification proposed as to its suitability. This has not been provided so far and there is no evidence of the requirement to use rainwater as a resource or the use of permeable pavements for example
6.2.4 Where possible, stormwater should be managed in small, cost-effective landscape features located within small sub-catchments rather than being conveyed to and managed in large systems at the bottom of drainage areas. Demonstrably not the case in this application, and not even at the bottom of the site requiring pumping.
6.2.7 The variety of SuDS available allows planners and designers to make full potential of the local land and consider the needs of local people when implementing the drainage design. No attempt has been made to consider the needs of local people
6.3.1 Across Hastings, the nature of the soil, subsoil and underlying strata makes the disposal of runoff to groundwater by means of SuDS incorporating soil infiltration processes a very challenging proposition. Whilst the BGS infiltration SuDS suitability mapping suggests that some areas of the Borough may be suitable for bespoke infiltration techniques, this is countered by BGS Geohazard and Bedrock Geology mapping which suggests infiltration is not a viable option across the vast majority of the Borough.
6.3.2 Due to the impact of infiltration on slope stability and the risk of landslides, any discharge into the ground in areas at the top of escarpments, cliffs, valleys, ledges, ridges or other steep geological features should be avoided even if bespoke solutions may be possible. This includes limiting discharge within transportation corridors to protect surrounding infrastructure.
It is clear from the HBC Assesment that SuDS isn't appropriate for this location or indeed most of Hastings.
SuDS design is not adequate for this site and fails to protect the town from the impacts of a failure in maintenance.
This application should be rejected.
Comment submitted date: Wed 18 Feb 2026
BNG METRIC APPENDIX C REV B
A revised version has been posted on 13th February.
This document still has data fields hidden so it is not possible to review how the results have been determined.
As the BioDiversity loss is currently sitting at 29% and given the application still states there are no hedgerows, contrary to the Ecologists comments it is likely that the data is not correct and the loss is understated.
By allowing the applicant to upload deliberately opaque documents the Council is preventing residents from objecting in a factual manner. Surely the Council should be concerned at this deliberate move by the applicant
As noted before this document should be uploaded with all data fields visible.
For clarity this is not about being able to change the spreadsheet simply to be able to follow all calculations through to data and challenge where appropriate.
Please ensure this document is provided in a manner allowing us to review and object.
Without free access to information this application should not be allowed to progress
Comment submitted date: Wed 18 Feb 2026
There is no clear communication from the Council as to what is happening with the application now the date for objections has passed.
New objections are still being uploaded - when will this cease to be the case?
Most of the important dates are not completed so it is impossible as a resident to understand what critical dates are coming up - Please provide some information
We are told that the planning department will not discuss the application with us so how will the Council inform us of what happens next?
Comment submitted date: Wed 15 Jul 2026
I notice that the agreed expiry date on this application has been changed from 10th July to 31 August 2026.
Can you please advise the importance of this date, what it is used for and when this date gets locked down given this OA has been running for nearly 18 months already.
Please also advise who authorised the change and why?
Ms Mary Hooper
Comment submitted date: Sat 31 May 2025
This area is a precious resource for all of Hastings and full of diverse habitats. We need housing but not in areas of ancient woodland. The pressure from increasing traffic, inadequate water supply and waste disposal- sewage etc.
There are already a brownfield sites which cry it for regeneration and could be National trail blazing eco affordable housing for sale or rental. Come in Hastings council say no to greedy developers and make them get in line.
Comment submitted date: Tue 26 May 2026
This is a travesty against the environment destroying part of ancient woodland, lack of infrastructure for water, sewage disposal, increasing flood risk, traffic overload on an already heavily congested highway. This area is treasured by the Hastings community.
Mrs Joanna Silsby
Comment submitted date: Tue 10 Feb 2026
The overall well being of Hastings depends this space to be left as is. Hastings town centre already floods far to often due to too much land having been chopped to pieces and dug up for construction because woodland captures rain and water run off before it escapes further down the slope of the ridge.
Additionally Wildlife needs this natural space to migrate from location to location safely. This is one of the last supporting spots for wildlife to do this, and wildlife provides our town with the biodiversity that keeps our environment health stable.
Please stop this from happening. You have the power to say no, this development is detrimental to the wellbeing of Hastings.
Ancient woodland harbours great support to the local environment. Centuries of growth which are irreplaceable, must be left as is for the cleanliness of this Town. We will loose tremendous value to our whole community if Sandrock bends is cut down and destroyed. There may be a few who benefit financially, but money holds no value long term and the greed of the few destroy the welfare of the many.
My mother and father grew up in this area, and married in the church that is right there. This woodland is a reminder of Hastings heritage.
Please do now allow this construction to take over this ancient heritage of trees and nature. Technology cannot ever replace this majesty of woodland. Money is short lived and lines unnecessary pockets. Natural beauty of this kind can never be re-established in this or the next or the next lifetime.
Remember our future generations, remember that beyond what is termed as "development" is actual development, growth of a far greater kind.
So much of Hastings and St Leonards ancient woodland has already been destroyed due to the powers of those holding forms and purse strings. Just because it "can" be done, doesn't necessarily mean it "should" be done.
The moral highway can be overridden with promises of fancier lights, and bells and whistles of various kinds, but sometimes it is the quiet song of the bird or the set of the badger that gives the soul of Hastings it's peace.
Comment submitted date: Fri 15 May 2026
This is my second notice of objection.
The destruction of ancient woodland must stop. There is so little left. It was made over many hundreds of years.
Damage to our air quality, to the balance of nature in is core state of biodiversity, to waterfall placement is all part of the work this woodland quietly conducts.
Pollution both of air quality and noise and light, will increase.
Stop this narrow-minded action. Leave the woodland as is.
Sincerely Joanna Silsby
Ms Christine Hammond
Comment submitted date: Mon 06 Apr 2026
I'm objecting to the proposal to build up to 65 houses in the Sandrock Bend area next to St Helen's Church. This is not a suitable area for development for the reasons set out below. This objection falls into 3 main categories:
1. There is insufficient drain capacity provided by Southern Water to accommodate this extra housing: the drains that they propose to use have already been unable to deal with medium to high rainfall on top of the household usage they currently cater for - please see the St Helen's Park Preservation Society comment of 4/3/26. Periods of inundation have already been witnessed, where flooding has occurred downhill from the site, affecting St Helen's Woods and then lower down, Alexandra Park, and affecting the major problems experienced in the town centre over the last couple of years.
There has also been sewage seepage recorded within the woods, which causes pollution and ultimately affects this area of protected wildlife, as well as those who live nearby and those who walk and enjoy the area, and their pets.
2. Green corridor: if this area was built upon, a valuable green corridor linking the unspoilt areas beyond the ridge to St Helen's Park will be broken. This affects the habitat of wild animals especially, such as badgers, foxes etc. Shrinking such habitats still further will do nothing to encourage biodiversity, a foundation pillar action to combat climate change.
3. Traffic + pollution - 65 houses will inevitably mean more cars - on a conservative estimate of 1 car per household, 65 cars would emit around 100 tonnes of CO2 per year. This cannot be seen as beneficial to Hastings and its inhabitants in terms of greenhouse gas and associated respiratory problems. Also, the Ridge into which these houses would feed is already extremely busy most of the day and evening, hard to turn into and very pedestrian-unfriendly.
For each of the reasons outlined above, the proposal to build in this particular location is not going to be beneficial for the inhabitants and wider ecosystem of Hastings itself.
Comment submitted date: Tue 07 Apr 2026
I'm objecting to the proposal to build up to 65 houses in the Sandrock Bend area next to St Helen's Church. This is not a suitable area for development for the reasons set out below. This objection falls into 3 main categories:
1. There is insufficient drain capacity provided by Southern Water to accommodate this extra housing: the drains that they propose to use have already been unable to deal with medium to high rainfall on top of the household usage they currently cater for - please see the St Helen's Park Preservation Society comment of 4/3/26. Periods of inundation have already been witnessed, where flooding has occurred downhill from the site, affecting St Helen's Woods and then lower down, Alexandra Park, and affecting the major problems experienced in the town centre over the last couple of years.
There has also been sewage seepage recorded within the woods, which causes pollution and ultimately affects this area of protected wildlife, as well as those who live nearby and those who walk and enjoy the area, and their pets.
2. Green corridor: if this area was built upon, a valuable green corridor linking the unspoilt areas beyond the ridge to St Helen's Park will be broken. This affects the habitat of wild animals especially, such as badgers, foxes etc. Shrinking such habitats still further will do nothing to encourage biodiversity, a foundation pillar action to combat climate change.
3. Traffic + pollution - 65 houses will inevitably mean more cars - on a conservative estimate of 1 car per household, 65 cars would emit around 100 tonnes of CO2 per year. This cannot be seen as beneficial to Hastings and its inhabitants in terms of greenhouse gas and associated respiratory problems. Also, the Ridge into which these houses would feed is already extremely busy most of the day and evening, hard to turn into and very pedestrian-unfriendly.
For each of the reasons outlined above, the proposal to build in this particular location is not going to be beneficial for the inhabitants and wider ecosystem of Hastings itself.
Mrs Avalin White
Comment submitted date: Tue 29 Apr 2025
I object to the proposed planning of 60 dwellings due to the impact this building project will have on the local wildlife and congestion of the traffic on and off the Ridge.
**comment redacted**
Comment submitted date: Sun 25 Jan 2026
Hastings has recently seen the construction of over 300 social housing units off Harrow Lane, yet no corresponding investment has been made in essential infrastructure. There have been no additional provisions for schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, or dental surgeries.
In this context, the proposal to build further housing at Sandrock Bends is not feasible or sustainable. Existing services are already under significant strain, and no clear plans have been presented to address the increased demand this development would create.
Furthermore, the site raises serious concerns regarding extra traffic on and off The Ridge, drainage and flooding, as well as the impact on local wildlife, environmentally sensitive areas, and designated areas of natural beauty. These factors must be given proper consideration before any further development is approved.
Comment submitted date: Tue 07 Apr 2026
Locals to the area do not want any further housing in the area. The local infrastructure, employment cannot support the extra families that come into the area. The schools, hospital, dentists and amenities can't cope, The Ridge is always full of traffic and the influx of extra vehicles, will cause further delays. The area is of natural beauty and reports and documents have reflected and confirmed building will cause problems with drainage, flooding and water pressure for the surrounding areas.
I know HBC is short of money, so there is a conflict of interest for them to sell off land to make as much money as possible, but beautiful premium land should not be taken advantage of as it's easy money for local councils.
Ms Sarah Ingram
Comment submitted date: Mon 06 Apr 2026
In this time of mental well being enlightenment is this even being on the table .
Green spaces are fast disappearing from our landscape for our wellbeing and the geography speaks for itself land saturation flooding l almost others are on coarse for this happening we down at Sandrock at the moment are absolutely vulnerable for flooding and so in turn down below us Hastings
I strongly obgect to any development
Comment submitted date: Mon 06 Apr 2026
I object most strongly against the proposed planning at Sandrock bends.
Being at the bottom of the driveway at Sandrock hall, we already have to be careful of flooding.
The main building of Sandrock hall has approximately 12 flat. And 4 private houses in our mews at the bottom. Water and gravel already runs down at a great rate and floods our driveway and porch. If we have to lift the grates to the water grids of the drain pipes to help with riding the water as they get blocked. Sandrock hall often have blocked sewage pipes which run into our propert causing problems. we are extremely fearful the building works of the houses and future occupancy will end up with our house actually flooding.
We would be happy to show councillors the property to illiterate our concerns.
On top of this worrisome problem is the wildlife damaging aspect. It's such a rich corridor for the wildlife %commentredacted%.
We've lost so much habitat locally in my time being here since 2001 due to over development of land.
Finally I'd like to say that we witness the evidence of many car accidents on the ridge on the corner of Sandrock bend and I can't believe that a road for the proposed development would help ease this issue.
It just seems utter madness, the whole project.
Mrs Georgina Jenyon
Comment submitted date: Mon 07 Jul 2025
I have been fortunate to have seen roe deer grazing on this land in the evenings. I assume they have been crossing The Ridge here for many years. Our precious wildlife has a tough enough time as it is.
Do we need to have 50 houses here adjacent to this already dangerous bend?
Comment submitted date: Mon 07 Jul 2025
Why the need for 62 houses on this already dangerous bend and the already overcrowded Ridge.
I have been privileged to see Roe deer grazing here in the late evening. Presumably they have crossed The Ridge. Is this development to be another crime against the dwindling wildlife in our once green land?
Comment submitted date: Fri 03 Apr 2026
The Sandrock bends area is an area with a long road frontage bordering the very prolific traffic area of the main Ridge thoroughfare adding and delaying hospital emergencies .
Bordering as it does to the unique St Helens wood it will corrupt this area with extra toxic drainage which the woods volunteers will not be able to cope with and this will add more maintenance issues which in the long term will permanently ruin this wonderful attraction for Hastings .
Please can you spare us this heartache . Thank you
Mr Brian Worrall
Comment submitted date: Fri 27 Jun 2025
Object
I often take my little dog for a walk through Sandrock bends. When the little fella realises we are on the to Sandrock, he starts tugging at his lead for us to go faster. He absolutely loves going there. What impresses me the most, is the sound of the birds happily going about their daily lives and instilling a sense of peace and an escape from the noisy busy world beyond the trees and vegetation bordering the field. How sad it would be to lose this peaceful place to the hustle and bustle of yet another urban settlement.
Regards
B A Worrall
Comment submitted date: Wed 01 Apr 2026
There are few enough open spaces left in Hastings. How will the area cope with yet another 120 to 140 Houses. Where will the new residents find a Doctors or Dentist practice to join. Public transport servicing the area is restricted to two buses an hour, unfortunately both running at virtually the same time. I doubt in the already over stressed "The Ridge" can facilitate yet another two to three hundred vehicles daily.
Showing 1-10 of 908|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|Next