Detailed Comments on the Bahcheli Report

1. Introduction

Paragraph 1.3: The caravan park is also jointly owned by Mr and Mrs Guilliard’s son, Stuart Guilliard, and his name appears on the caravan park site licence.

Paragraph 1.5: The landslip revealed a number of unauthorised developments that previously had been hidden from public view… This is not correct as the removal of the trees over a period of time was the reason for the unauthorised developments being revealed. Reports of tree removal were first recorded as being reported to the Council as early as 2010, and concerned residents were fobbed off with various excuses such as the trees were not covered by ‘Tree Protection Orders’; they are not in a Conservation Area, ‘the caravan park owners can do what they like on their own land’… It was for this reason that the matter was not pursued by members of the public who reported trees being cut down over a long period of time. The tree screening that surrounded the now unauthorised two storey holiday let was reported to the Council in October 2013, soon after the development started on the site. This unauthorised tree clearing was reported to the Council three months before Condition 5 (tree screening) attached to application: HS/FA/12/00952 was discharged. The Council stated to concerned residents that the Condition attached to the planning approval was not relevant to the south-west boundary; it was only relevant to the north-east corner of the new property to screen the holiday let from the existing buildings and the caravan park. It was stated that the owners of the caravan park could do what they liked on their own land.

Paragraph 1.6: Reports that the building has not been built in accordance with the approved plans is not an allegation it is the truth, confirmed by Standen Associates Limited in their report that the building is in fact higher than the approved plans, is not on the correct footprint, is at least 3 metres closer to the existing property and its orientation is changed so that it now directly faces the sea.

Planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 should also be described as being incorrectly handled and considered. This is not included in Mrs Bahcheli’s list and is an omission that should not be overlooked. It is not only the planning decision that is of concern to the local residents and ‘Save Ecclesbourne Glen Campaign Group’; it is the way in which the application was incorrectly handled from its submission to the final decision made.

The landslip did not reveal the development works within the caravan park; complaints were made about the tree loss that led to the unauthorised buildings and caravans being revealed from at least 2010.

It would be more appropriate to call the local residents’ concerns complaints rather than allegations as the term is weighted against the local residents. Most of the comments and complaints raised have been confirmed as being correct.

Planning Application: HS/FA/14/00406 was not properly submitted, as there were a considerable number of flaws in the submitted documentation, and drawings. The outcome was the correct one in the circumstances but incorrect procedures were followed which could have led to a more disastrous outcome. There are other developments on the caravan site that have been undertaken without planning permission – most of which have been confirmed by the Council. Although, reluctant to take enforcement action against the breaches they have not denied that they have occurred.

2 The Brief for the Review

Paragraph 2.2: It would be useful if the names of the planning and enforcement officers who were consulted were also listed within the consultees in the making of this report. Every other party has been named, and this seems to be an omission, and not in the interests of openness and transparency. Planning officers should be named with their roles and where planning officers are quoted in the report they should be named. This report is meant to be about accountability. In her report Mrs Bahcheli makes reference to the case officer as being male. All three planning applications noted in this report, that related to the proposed holiday let, were dealt with by female case officers – this is misleading and the case officer that dealt with the relevant planning application should be named to avoid confusion.

1

The Council’s tree specialist, Mr Chris Wilkins, is mentioned in the report but his name is not on the list of consultees. It is not known whether the evidence provided from Mr Wilkins is actual quotes or third party evidence.

Paragraph 2.3: Given that the following are the responsibility of the planning department and are directly relevant it is not understood why they have been omitted from the brief. All of these issues have breached planning conditions. These issues remain unresolved and require urgent review: Siting of caravans Roads Terracing Car Parks Drainage Advertising Other breaches of Planning Control

Given that other less important issues such as solar panels and a storage building have been covered it is not understood why these more important issues have not been included. Information was provided on these issues and we have already criticised their omission from the report. Despite this they remain uncovered by the report.

3. Documents examined

Paragraph 3.1: It was understood that our submitted documentation would be viewed by Mrs Bahcheli and its contents used if considered applicable or relevant. There are factual statements made, with evidence provided, in the submitted documentation which has been disregarded in favour of Mrs Bahcheli’s personal opinions. The members of ‘Save Ecclesbourne Glen Campaign Group’ were asked to provide a breakdown of the relevant issues to aid Mrs Bahcheli in her report, and many weeks were spent in ensuring that the information was correct and relevant. We can see no evidence in this report that our evidence and documentation has been used in the making of this report. The information provided was not presented to either guide or sway Mrs Bahcheli but to aid her in coming to an informed decision, whether or not it was favourable to our ‘Group’. The planning history of Rocklands is very complicated and our documents were compiled to bring the planning history of Rocklands into easily managed documentation; details of each relevant piece of evidence was dated, referenced and where the documentation could be found, noted. There are no reference numbers or dates proved with Mrs Bahcheli’s report that shows where she gleaned her evidence from and some of her statements are against the factual evidence.

Mrs Bahcheli makes reference to our document entitled ‘Trojan House’ (not Horse) but does not either mention it or discount its content in the making of her report.

Mrs Bahcheli makes references to details mentioned in the report, compiled by Standen Associates Limited, but does not mention it by name, and this is not listed within the documentation examined list.

Paragraph 3.2: Mrs Bahcheli states in her report that she has had access to the Council’s Acolaid Planning database but she does not state whether she had access to the paper files held at Aquila House. The online database is incomplete and does not contain all documentation that is relevant to the individual planning applications. A lot of our submitted evidence is recorded from the paper files. It was stated by planning officers that sensitive information and handwritten notes are not posted online.

4. Executive Summary

HS/FA/12/00952

Paragraph 4.2: There is record of the paperwork concerning the pre-application discussion. There are notes taken of the discussions made between the Development Control Manager, Mr and Mrs Guilliard and their Agent, John Waterhouse, Elevations Designs Limited, but there is no confirmation letter sent and no record of the fees collected. A pre-application discussion is not a free service and fees are charge depending upon the level of consultation and the officers attending the meeting. The applicants stated in the application form that this pre-discussion did not take place.

Paragraph 4.4: The ‘Heritage Statement’ recommended that The Country Park Management Team be consulted on planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 as the proposal may have had an adverse effect on the views from the Country Park and Ecclesbourne Glen. The Country Park Management Team was not consulted on the proposal in spite of the recommendations made in the report compiled by Richard James, Archaeology South-East. Hastings Country Park surrounds the caravan park, where this development site is situated, on three sides yet it was not considered necessary to notify them of the proposal that has a direct effect on the amenity of the Country Park and compromises the view seaward from the proposed development. Mr Murray Davidson, Environment and Natural Resources Manager, was not consulted on the proposal.

2

Paragraph 4.5: Mrs Bahcheli claims that there were some inaccuracies in the documentation submitted with the planning applications. This we think is an understatement as the plans were wrong, there was consistent over statement of bungalow size, and an understatement of the proposed holiday let size. The ‘Heritage Statement’ was used as evidence that the two storey building would not have an adverse effect on the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ and its setting. It was stated that the two storey holiday let would be screened by dense tree and vegetative covering and the topography of the land. The only areas thought to be insufficient in screening were the areas to the north-east of the new property and the hedgerow that separated the new building from the existing building, ‘Rocklands House’. This was addressed in the Condition attached to the planning approval HS/FA/12/00952. This desk study was based on photographic evidence supplied by the applicants that the proposal would be hidden from views from the Country Park and Ecclesbourne Glen.

It is our opinion that it was the inaccuracies and misleading information provided in the submitted plans, documentation and photographs that led the consultees into changing their opinions on the identical proposals. All documentation provided, led the consultees into believing that the proposal would be small scale and would be obscured from view by dense mature tree and hedge covering. Paragraph 4.6: It would appear as all of the blame is being shifted from the applicants to anyone other than them as if they were innocent people in this fiasco. We cannot believe that they were unaware of what was happening on their own site; they live next door to the application site. They would have briefed their agent on the proposal and what their requirement in terms of a holiday let was. The proposal was to build a replacement property on the footprint of an existing bungalow, only smaller. Why then was it considered necessary to expand on the site and to cut into the rampart of the ‘Iron Age Hill Fort’ to the rear of the site? A mature important hedgerow was removed to accommodate a larger building and the alignment changed so that the property faced the sea to afford the holiday makers a better view over the Country Park to the sparkling English Channel. The terracing between the new and old property was removed to create an access road past their window. We find it hardly likely that they did not question this unnecessary activity that was over and above their planning approval.

There were many inaccuracies within their submitted documentation, such as there are no ecological issues and there are no trees on the site or on the adjacent site, which is a SSSI site and part of the Country Park, which led to insufficient evidence being sought. No ecological surveys were undertaken, and a tree survey was not performed. Insufficient information was provided on the proposed sewage and grey water disposal and there were no details on how the site was to be drained. This lack of information, and the case officers’ lack of attention to detail, led to incorrect procedures being followed: the Water Board were not consulted as is normal with a new planning application, there were no provisions made for the wildlife and insufficient evidence concerning the trees on the site led to their subsequent removal, without a detailed tree survey being conducted. The applicants provided incorrect and contradictory evidence on the ‘Use’ of the property and stated that it had been residential for over 100 years. They then provided details of bookings for the bungalow as part of their holiday let business plan.

Paragraph 4.7: The author of the report, Mrs Bahcheli, states that the case officer for planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 did not consider the impact the proposal had on the conservation area and that it was the reason for the refusal of the previous planning application HS/FA/12/00471. She also stated that there is a statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing a conservation area, and that the application did not consider land stability. The fact that Policy C1 was applicable was relevant in this case, and in the previously refused application HS/FA/12/00471, but when the application for the ‘retrospective’ planning application was heard at committee the Development Control Manager, Raymond Crawford, misled the planning committee members by saying that Policy C1 was not applicable as the site is not within the ‘Old Town Conservation Area’. Later in her report, Mrs Bahcheli, comments that the refused planning application had been declared unlawful by a higher authority. This report is wholly flawed as Mrs Bahcheli uses an argument that planning application HS/FA/12/00952 was not handled correctly, as it did not cover the reasons for refusal in the previous application, and then contradicts herself by stating that the refused application was unlawful.

Paragraph 4.8: The previous reasons for refusal were not addressed in spite of the case officer asking, after the closing date for comments to be received, for further information in order to be able to make an informed decision. Planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 was identical in every way to the previously refused planning application apart from the additional ‘Heritage Statement’; which was one of the listed reasons for refusal as there was insufficient evidence in respect of the impact on the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ and its setting.

No explanation is given into the reasons for this complete contradiction on how the two identical planning applications were handled. You would think that with current policies and guidelines followed that the case officers would have reached the same decision. Mrs Bahcheli has not attempted to explain, or investigate why a different decision was made on the resubmitted planning application. Mrs Bahcheli confirms that insufficient evidence was provided, and that some of the evidence was misleading and further investigations should have been undertaken prior to the final decision being made.

3

Paragraph 4.9: The delegated officer’s report recommending refusal (planning application: HS/FA/12/00471) was signed off by the Development Control Manager, who a month later liked the same proposal and could be persuaded to approve it, if a few minor alterations to the plans, and additional information was submitted. It could be argued that this procedure was appropriate under the circumstances, and that the Development Control Manager was right to ask for this additional information so that the proposal could be approved. One has to question though, if the only reasons for refusal were the lack of a ‘Heritage Statement’ and a business plan that identified the need for this type of accommodation, why it was not requested when the previous application was still on the table.

Planning application: HS/FA/12/00471 was submitted on 28 May 2012 and validated on 8 June 2012. The consultation period was from 14 June 2012 – 12 July 2012 and the application refused on 19 July 2012. The application was refused a week after the consultation period finished. Archaeology at ESCC commented on the lack of a ‘Heritage Statement’ and recommended that ‘English Heritage’ was consulted as the proposed development could have affected the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ and its setting. This advice was not heeded to and a ‘Heritage Statement’ was not requested as additional information. It was clear that the reasons for refusal at that time could not have been justified by supplying this further information, which was considered sufficient to pass the subsequent ‘like for like’ identical planning application or it would have been requested at the time. It was obvious that other reasons for the refusal of HS/FA/012/00471 were more significant and could not be addressed with further paperwork as the building was considered to be not small scale in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and did not conform to local and governmental policies.

There were two objection letters, one from High Weald AONB and one from the then Chair of the ‘Friends of the Country Park’, Steven Peak, and one comment from Archaeology at East Sussex Country Council that further information should be sought and that English Heritage should be consulted. It was suggested that ‘suitably worded conditions’ be added if the application was considered for approval. If ‘English Heritage’ were consulted then there is nothing to say that they would not have recommended refusal in light of a lack of evidence on the effect the proposal could have had on the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ and its settings. By refusing the application under delegated powers the officer has denied the objectors the chance to be heard by the planning committee members. It is not known at this stage whether the planning application could have been refused by the committee members. Under the Council’s own planning protocol an application refused at committee cannot subsequently be approved under delegated powers.

There is no justification to the reason why the case officer did not push for the requested documentation that addressed the previous reasons for refusal, and accepted a drawing that showed a previously approved scheme against the existing property, instead of the requested drawings that showed the existing bungalow in relationship to ‘Rocklands House’. Although used as a justifiable argument that previously approved plans are material considerations, it should have been made clear that the drawing related to a previously approved scheme, and not to the current build. The requested drawings were not submitted, and it would appear as if the case officer was bullied into accepting insufficient evidence in order to get the building approved.

We welcome the suggestion that there should be a higher level of debating, and that there could be an improved system of supervision of delegated reporting, but how is this to be imposed? The delegated officer’s report is signed off by either the Development Control Manager or a Senior Planning Officer, so presumably the fault lies with them for not checking that the delegated reports are correct, and that the correct decision has been made. The ultimate decision must be made by the senior officer, who is signing the ‘Decision Notice’ to say approval is correct and lawful. Could and should are words that are suggestions, and not requests; it leads to an open interpretation. Recommendations should be more strongly worded, so that they are adopted and adhered to, without question.

HS/FA/14/00406

Paragraph 4.10: (HS/FA/00407) The recorded planning application number is incorrect as there is no year stipulated and the case number is incorrect. The correct application number is HS/FA/14/00406 and not 00407. The ‘Save Ecclesbourne Glen Campaign Group’ is familiar with the various planning applications, but this report is for general viewing. This report has been posted on the Council’s website for all to see, the reference numbers should be correct to stop any confusion.

The neighbour notification letters were posted to ‘Rocklands Cottage’, which is in the ownership of Mr and Mrs Guilliard, the owners of Rocklands Holiday Caravan Park and the applicants to the planning applications outlined in Mrs Bahcheli’s report, and to Steven Peak, the then Chairman of Friends of the Country Park to which the application site abuts. Neighbours consulted on previous planning applications for Rocklands were not consulted.

Paragraph 4.11: The author states that due to the ‘Standen Report’, not listed in list of documentation that she has referred to in the making of this report, that we now know the measurements of the ‘as built’ building to be incorrect. Objectors to the ‘retrospective’ planning application gave measurements of the building, that were gleaned from the

4

submitted plans, that showed the building to be taller and wider on all elevations but their concerns were ignored and measurements trivialised so that the ‘retrospective’ proposal could be approved. These measurements were within an opinion written by barrister, Christiaan Zwart. A table of measurements was included in the opinion that showed the measurements of the existing bungalow; measurements of the approved plans; measurements of the revised plans and the measurements of the bungalow extension application: HS/FA/10/00492. Objectors drew attention to the unauthorised retaining wall to the rear of the property and it was indicated in objection letters that the rampart to the ‘Iron Age Hill Fort’ had been breached. Not one of the objectors valid points were noted or addressed by the case officer. The statement in this paragraph is too general and does not list specifics. If things are to improve within the planning system then a more detailed explanation of mistakes need to be made, and noted, so that they can be avoided in the future.

An official measurement of the ‘as built’ building was requested during the consultation period for HS/FA/14/00406 but this request was ignored and the planning application presented at committee with the false and misleading plans and measurements included. Mr Crawford, Development Control Manager, gave false information to the planning committee members when asked about the actual height of the building. He also stated that there were no official guidelines on what could constitute a ‘minor amendment’ and confirmed that it was up to interpretation as there were no official guidelines. Government Guidelines are published on what can and cannot be classed as a ‘minor material amendment’ and some of the ‘amendments’ outlined within the application do not fall within accepted guidelines.

These are issues that need to be investigated and addressed. It has not been stipulated what ‘higher level’ means. Does it mean accurate or in more detail? Some of the suggestions made should already be adhered to and make perfect sense, the reporting officer should not need reminding.

Paragraph 4.12: It is unclear what the author is referring to when she states that the reporting officer was correct in comparing the building to the existing consent. We are presuming that she is referring to the comment ‘Planning permission had previously been granted for a first floor extension to the original bungalow’. This statement is entirely irrelevant for planning application: HS/FA/14/00406 as at the time this planning application was submitted the 2010 planning permission had expired unimplemented; the permission was approved on 5 October 2010 and was for an implementation period of three years. Planning application: HS/FA/14/00406 was submitted on 14 May 2014. At the time that HS/FA/14/00406 was submitted the original bungalow had been demolished, so therefore a first floor extension was a physical impossibility.

In the previous planning application: HS/FA/12/00952, the previous scheme HS/FA/10/00492 (Roof Alteration to Form First Floor Extension) was used as a lever to pass the two storey holiday let proposal, as it was the previous scheme that was compared to the existing property ‘Rocklands House’ not the original bungalow that it replaced. The reporting officer, Mrs Elke Collins, negates to say that by the applicants’ own admission, the existing bungalow was incapable of taking the weight of a further storey. This statement was submitted as further evidence to support their case; it should have been noted that at that time there was a previous approval for an additional storey to the existing building but this was incapable of implementation, as the existing building had deteriorated since the original permission was approved. Mr and Mrs Guilliard in their additional information statement said:

‘Rocklands Bungalow is now more than 100 years old, built of rendered insulation board and timber frame and is well and truly past its best and certainly would not now support the first floor extension for which we already have planning permission’.

This also did not take into account the current circumstances. We agree that the removal of the tree screening on the south-west boundary and to the rear of the property were significant changes that were not sufficiently addressed in this application and neither were the land stability issues. Both of these issues were highlighted in objectors’ letters, but ignored other than by adding ‘suitably worded conditions’ in respect of the tree screening. The question of land instability was noted on the officer’s site visit report, but was not followed up on, and was not addressed.

Paragraph 4.13: The way in which planning application HS/FA/14/00406 was handled was flawed from the start. Drawings were submitted with the application that did not show the full extent of the changes to be made. The planning application was a ‘retrospective’ planning application to regularise an ‘as built’ building; the submitted drawings should have reflected what was shown on the ground. The application was promoted as a ‘minor material amendment’ application and the changes trivialised and understated. The drawings did not show actual dimensions which confused the Development Control Manager who gave misleading information on the height of the property in order to get the application approved. The case officer did not follow government guidelines when registering the application as a ‘minor amendment’ application (which is a ‘minor non-material amendment) and did not reassess the situation when it was discovered that not all of the changes had been recorded on the submitted plans. There were additional ‘amendments’ on the plans which were outside of the redline area of the application site. A ‘Design and Access Statement’ was not submitted and there were no detailed notes on what the actual proposal was. The plans did not show the original approved plans with the changes marked in red which is a legal requirement. Three sections of the Town and Country Planning Act were used in the determination of this application, none of which were correct.

5

The application process was rushed and the objectors were not given enough time to respond to the proposal as the committee report was written several days before the consultation period ended.

Paragraph 4:14: By this statement it appears if Mrs Bahcheli is stating that it was a lucky chance that the application was rejected, not that it was the right thing to do in the circumstances. It is more likely that the planning department had a lucky escape in that the planning committee members came to the right decision in refusing this seriously flawed planning application. Local objectors made the planning department aware of the significant changes that has been made to the property without planning permission, that were not recorded on any of the plans, but the case officer and Development Control Manager chose to ignore their comments and decided to approve an application that has now been confirmed as being seriously flawed.

Fortuitous or by chance, surely she means fortunate? It was only because of the campaign group’s hard work and the ultimate right decision made by the planning committee members that this planning application was refused, which was against the planning officer’s recommendation. There is nothing to say that if the parent approval HS/FA/12/00952 had gone to committee that a refusal decision would also have been made.

Paragraph 4.15: This is not an application for a fresh full planning application it is an application for ‘retrospective’ permission to ratify an ‘as built’ property. In light of the fact that the building is already there we find it difficult to comprehend how supporting evidence can be supplied ‘retrospectively‘. No Conditions can be attached to the planning approval that is ‘Pursuant to Development’ as the ground work has been completed without land stability issues or the changes in vegetation being taken into consideration. As there were reports of land instability in the garden area, and to the rear of the existing bungalow, reported in the ‘Heritage Statement’ these should have been addressed in the determination of HS/FA/12/00952 and not after the building is almost complete.

Planning application: HS/FA/14/00406 was submitted to regularise the unauthorised building and that application was refused. The decision has not been challenged so therefore still stands in spite of the applications flaws. The applicants have had ‘one bite of the cherry’ and their proposal refused.

Paragraph 4.16: Planning Application: HS/FA/14/00406 was refused on 18 June 2014 – it is now the end of October and nothing has changed since the refusal other than a survey into the building’s actual measurements. This survey, which was commissioned by the Council after complaints from members of the public that the submitted drawings were incorrect, shows that the building is far worse than the ‘revised’ application suggested. The height of the building has been confirmed as being at least 59 cm too tall and is at least 40 cm too wide on all elevations. The footprint of the building and orientation of the building are not to the approved plans; the building is at least 3 metres closer to the existing ‘Rocklands House’ and has encroached on the ‘Iron Age Hill Fort’. A ‘Planning Contravention Notice’ was issued on 2 July 2014 in respect of the breach of planning permission – we would think that 6 months is not an unreasonable deadline for enforcement action to be taken. It has not been stipulated how long the Council is prepared to wait until the applicants make up their mind on what their next move will be.

Storage Building and Solar panels

Paragraph: 4.17: The solar panels are situated on the site of a ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ and are visible from the Country Park and Ecclesbourne Glen. The solar panels were installed without the benefit of planning permission. Two of the solar panels that were situated on the ‘SAM’ have been relocated to the roof of the holiday flats that are located within the caravan park – these solar panels were not relocated, as they were directly upon the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ site but because an unauthorised road had been created between the car parking facilities that served the caravan park and the new building – the panels had to be moved to accommodate this unauthorised access. No planning permission was sought before these solar panels were relocated.

The storage unit goes against previous planning approvals that stipulate that there are to be no buildings within the caravan park other than ablutions blocks. The storage unit is within an area where the siting of caravans, cars and tents are expressly forbidden in order to preserve the amenity of the area. This storage unit is nearer to the Country Park boundary and the setting of the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ than the designated amenity and landscaping area. The storage unit has been cut into the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’. The Council and Mrs Bahcheli have not considered the implications of this unit before forming their decision that it causes no material harm to either the environment or to the amenity of the area. A ‘Certificate of Lawful Use or Development’ certificate is not applicable in this instance as the unit is on Designated Land; the caravan park is in ‘Designated Land’ where there are restrictions on ‘Permitted Development Rights’; the caravan park is within an ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ where there are restrictions on the size and positioning of storage units. Tree Loss of Trees of Rocklands

6

Paragraph 4.20: The author states ‘we are aware that the Council made errors in reporting the status of the trees on the site in on-going queries about works to trees’. Please can it be confirmed who ‘we’ are as Mrs Bahcheli is an Independent Planning Consultant who we understood to be working on her own initiative and not on behalf of the Council? It is stated that Council employees reported to the landowners that no consents were required to undertake work to trees. A ‘Freedom of Information Request’ states that no officer gave consent to Mr and Mrs Guilliard to remove trees and this was confirmed by the tree specialist Chris Wilkins in a telephone conversation to the President of Hastings Badger Protection Society, Don Wise. Please can you confirm who gave the advice to the Guilliards and where is the relevant documentation? The author makes note of this being an error, but then justifies the council’s actions in the subsequent paragraphs. It is stated that this advice was given to the caravan park owners in 2010 but there were reports of tree felling as far back as 2004. Why did the owners of the park only consider it necessary to ask for confirmation in 2010?

This is the first time that the ‘SEGCG’ have heard of officers giving the owners of Rocklands permission to fell trees. We as a group are suspicious of this revelation, and would like to see the supporting documents for this. This revelation is tantamount to gross maladministration and will be part of the Group’s submission to the Local Government Ombudsman. If this information is correct, and there is documentary proof, then the Council has misled the Campaigners, and has caused them unnecessary hours of work in producing evidence that would be sufficient to stand up in a court of law. If this is the case then we think that an apology is due. It was the Council that requested this evidence from the Group and many, many hours were spent on compiling a document with photographic and other supporting evidence. It was Mr Hurrell who informed the Council that the trees were protected by planning conditions, but in spite of this he was fobbed of with excuses or the statement that no trees were removed only bushes. The statements made do not add up, either no trees were felled or trees were felled, but with permission given from the Council, as it was not understood that the trees were afforded some protection. The Council has wasted our time in allowing us to produce evidence that they had no intention of taking into consideration. The goal posts are moved, and our evidence dismissed as being insufficient, when all of the time the Council was only covering up for its own ineptitude. The Council should be held accountable for the tree loss and should therefore, ensure that the trees are replaced like for like.

Although, the Council now admits that permission was given to cut down trees on the site this does not explain the tree loss from 2004 and why it was only considered necessary to ask for permission in 2010. It is also unclear whether the advice given was for lopping or topping or whether it covered the removal of large swathes of trees.

This permission given in 2010 does not explain the tree loss surrounding the new proposal though; the applicants were fully aware that the conditions imposed referred to increased screening and not decreased screening. The applicants stated that the existing trees would remain as part of the landscaping proposals.

Mr Wise, Hastings Badger Protection Society was told in a FOI request that no permission was given to Rocklands for the felling of trees.

Paragraph 4.21: Conditions were attached to planning permissions that stipulated that ‘No trees on the site shall be lopped, topped or felled without the prior written consent of the District Planning Authority’. The planning consents have not been rescinded so therefore are still applicable. If the trees were removed without written consent from the Council then a planning breach has occurred.

Paragraph 4.22: The opinions of the Council officers and the landowners is taken as evidence without any documentary or photographic proof, but the evidence from the members of the public is stated as being unsubstantiated and photographic evidence ignored and trivialised. This shows that the Council regards the public’s documentary evidence as being worthless in comparison to the spoken word of Council employees and the developers.

There has been a significant amount of documentary evidence provided to the Council which has now been discounted as being insufficient as we did not provide an inventory of each individual tree. The only evidence provided from the applicants is a vague mention to a phone call, made sometime in 2010, concerning tree removal. FOI requests have stated that no authorisation for the removals was given and the applicants, in spite of asking for approval, claim that no trees have actually been removed. We think that there is a reference to the removal of one dying tree and the topping of a couple of firs. There is no record of who the officer was that gave this advice, and there is no record made of the actual call, or the advice given recorded. It is all very vague and once again the onus seems to be on the Campaigners to provide enough evidence to satisfy a Court of Law and the applicants only have to say that they made a call in 2010 and that is accepted. This is a breach of planning condition it is not a court case.

Paragraph 4.23: HS/FA/78/485/571Approved: 4 Apr 1979Applicant: G & A Ainge

7

Situation: Rocklands, Rocklands Lane, HastingsDescription of Development: Siting of ten additional caravans.

Condition 8: ‘Within two months of the date of grant of planning permission a scheme of landscaping and tree planting for the site shall be submitted for the approval of the District Planning Authority and any such scheme as may be approved by the District Planning Authority shall be implemented within six months of such grant or such further amended periods as may subsequently be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority and thereafter maintained’.

A request for a tree planting scheme was attached to the planning approvals for the site and that should indicate what type of tree was planted and where they stood. The author has stated that she has not seen evidence that she believes is sufficient to demonstrate that there has been a significant loss of trees at Rocklands. A large document with photographs, and details of tree removal, was submitted by ‘Save Ecclesbourne Glen Campaign Group’. This documentation evidence, although submitted to the Council, and passed to Mrs Bahcheli for her consideration, has not been listed in her ‘Documents Examined’ list and there are no references made in her report that suggest that she has looked at the evidence before forming her opinion.

Derogatory remarks were made about the amount of evidence submitted to support our case, but this has now been confirmed by the planning consultant to be insufficient to prove that trees have been removed. At no time has additional information been requested from our Group into the identity of each tree removed on the site. A ‘Tree Preservation Order’ has been imposed on the remaining trees on the site, but these trees have not been the subject of a species inventory, and are indicated in blocks of trees – some of the trees on this order had already been removed prior to the ‘TPO’ being finalised. It was asked that the Group be able to comment on the ‘TPO’ before this was finalised, but our comments, as usual, were ignored. By the Council’s own admission the ‘TPO’ will not be worth the paper that it is written on as it will be disputed what trees have been removed within the swathes of trees marked on the attached plan as they are not individually listed.

The Campaigners feel that the evidence requested goes over and above what is required for a breach of condition complaint. The trees at that time were not protected by a ‘Tree Preservation Order’ so were not individually listed. The condition imposed relates to any tree, not specific trees on the site.

Paragraph 4.24 The ‘Tree Preservation Order’ will not provide future protection to any trees on Rocklands Holiday Caravan Park as there are no indication of how many trees are within the swathes of trees indicated on the plan attached to the order. The trees are not individually marked, and there is no indication of what species each tree is. The attached plan is out of date and includes now demolished buildings (the flats and café were demolished to make way for replacement 6 flats with Penthouse Suite and the bungalow, demolished to make way for the two storey holiday let). Our concerns were outlined in letters issued at the time, but no heed was taken of our concerns. A tree replanting scheme for the holiday caravan park was requested from the Guilliards several months ago and that still has not been received by the Council. A voluntary tree replanting scheme without the supporting enforcement action is inadequate. The stability of the slope has not been established and geotechnical evidence into the slope’s stability has been requested by the Environmental Health Officer.

Paragraph 4.25: It is agreed that the standard of information supplied to support the planning applications was insufficient, but we have seen no evidence in this report that the shortcomings will be addressed in future planning applications. The comments made are not specific and do not list where the shortcoming occurred within the planning system. We have no faith that the way in which future planning applications are handled and determined will change and have no confidence that the report will make any significant difference to planning procedures as a whole.

Paragraph 4.26: The author of this report has obviously not looked at the submitted evidence as all claims have been substantiated with evidence from the Council’s own online records and from files held at Aquila House. Anything that the group is unsure of, or does not have documentary proof of has not been included in any of the reports, or is included with unreferenced opinions. We are entitled to have our own opinions, just the same as the author of this report is entitled to have her opinion; but unlike the comments made by the author of this report our comments are not personal attacks on the integrity and honesty of the campaigners. It is the author’s opinion that the developers did not intend to conceal the scale of the building from the planning department. Evidence taken from submitted documentation suggests otherwise. Third party representatives were misled by the ‘Heritage Statement’ as it was stated that the proposed property would be screened by trees and dense vegetation. It was stated that the building was to be built within the same footprint of the existing building, only smaller. The measurements of the existing building were not included within any documentation. The author of the ’Heritage Statement’ said that he was unable to determine the actual height of the building as there were no comparable drawing.

Other factually incorrect statements were made in the making of the application by the developer’s agent and the applicants themselves. Our supporting evidence and documentation listed these inaccuracies in detail and we request that our evidence documents are submitted with this critique for review.

8

Paragraph 4.27: We agree with this statement as if the general public’s concerns were addressed properly at the time then this situation would probably not now exist. Once again though the statement is too broad and does not cover specifics, it is not known whether Mrs Bahcheli is talking about the tree removal across the whole site or the reports that work had started on the holiday let before the ‘Conditions Pursuant to Development’ were discharged. From the sentence ‘Members of the public and the applicants felt they had been provided contradictory information’. We can only presume that she is talking about the tree removal that was reported, but not followed up as the enforcement officer gave out incorrect information that tree removal was allowable as there were no Tree Preservation Orders and they were not within a conservation area. The fact that the site is adjacent to the ‘Old Town Conservation Area’ and is within an ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ was not considered to be a binding factor. Policy C1 states that trees in conservation areas which contribute to the character of the area should not be lost.

‘POLICY C1Development within Conservation Areas Planning permission for development proposals within and adjacent to conservation areas will not be granted unless:-

(c) Trees, gardens, spaces between buildings and other open spaces (and particularly parks and gardens in conservation areas) which contribute to the character of the area should not be lost…

The enforcement officer might not have known about individual planning approvals that forbade the removal of trees without written consent from the council, but they should have known their own written policies. The officer must have enquired whether it was considered that the caravan park was within a conservation area or was affected by restrictions imposed on adjacent sites. It is stated in the Council’s protocol that all reports to Enforcement are investigated and reports responded to.

‘About Planning Enforcement

The Planning Enforcement section investigates cases where development has taken place without correct planning permission, or where conditions of a planning permission have not been followed. In other words where a breach of planning control has taken place.

Most complaints about breaches of planning control come to the department from the general public, but also from councillors, businesses, and community groups or are noted by planning officers themselves.

All complaints are responded to after being carefully prioritised.

The first response to a breach of planning control is to work with the occupier or owner to persuade them to make a planning application or cease work outside of planning conditions…’

Paragraph 4.28: We are not sure how this statement is relevant to this report or what effect members of the public’s comments on either the Council or the applicants has had in the determination of the listed planning applications. The comment made in this paragraph is not only unfounded, but is entirely irrelevant to any planning decisions made. It is stated by Mrs Bahcheli that there were no objections to planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 and that is the reason that the application was approved by delegated powers. HS/FA/12/00471 had two objections and one comment that there was insufficient evidence to be able to determine the planning application in its current form. The objections submitted against planning application: HS/FA/14/00406 were completely ignored in the planning decision making and the officer’s report was compiled before the closing date for objections to be received. There is no evidence that comments made by any objectors against the proposal had any influence on how the applications were determined. It is not known what Mrs Bahcheli is referring to when she states ‘Some members of the public have not helped matters by appearing to pursued a personal campaign against the applicants and the Council’ as once again she is not being specific in her comments. If she is referring to incidents that have occurred since the original planning applications were determined, then we cannot see what bearing this has on any decisions made at the time. Comments made on objections are vetted before they are posted online, so therefore if any comment made in the objection letters was considered to have been offensive then it would have been removed.

The members of ‘Save Ecclesbourne Glen Campaign Group’ spent many, many hours in compiling documentation with drawings and photographs to help Mrs Bahcheli in her task and members of the group met with her to explain the complicated history of the site. At no stage has the group pursued a personal campaign against either the applicants or the Council; we were only pointing out inaccuracies and inconsistencies between the different stages of decisions made that affected the site.

Paragraph 4.29: This suggestion is to be welcomed as there should be a tighter procedure following the refusal of planning applications. Planning application: HS/FA/12/00471 was refused by delegated powers and at that time the options available to the developers were to take the application to appeal or to submit revised plans addressing all of

9

the previous reasons for refusal. This did not happen and the application was resubmitted in full for consideration a month after the permission was refused. The previous reasons for refusal were not addressed. As the application was identical to the previous refusal then the previous letters of objection could have been held in abeyance to be considered on the subsequent planning application. There should have been a different method of determining identical planning applications other than by delegated decision. The recommendation is not strong enough to make a difference to how planning applications are handled. There should be a written guideline that must be adhered to.

Paragraph 4.30: It would have been more helpful if the case officer that dealt with the refusal had been allocated the subsequent planning application so that she could have been convinced that further submitted evidence was sufficient to address the shortcomings in the refused application. The original case officer, Mrs Bishop, obviously had an understanding of what was required for proposals in an ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ and believed that the proposal was out of keeping with the surrounding area and would not be small scale.

‘The proposed two-storey replacement dwelling, having regard to its scale, bulk, massing and height would, in this sensitive countryside location, not be small scale and would be excessive in relation to the scale of the existing dwelling and to the provision of a single replacement unit of holiday accommodation within the site, to the detriment of the visual amenities and rural character or the locality. Furthermore, the proposal is considered to represent an undesirable and unjustified degree of intensification of development within the site, which would be detrimental to the protection of this part of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and contrary to the long established restraint policies embodied with Planning Policy Statement 7 – ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ and Policies L2 and L3 of the Hastings Local Plan 2004.’

Mrs Collins had a different personal opinion about the proposal and based her decision on liking an urban design in a countryside location.

‘The design is not considered to be overbearing, and it is considered that the contemporary building with rendered walls and bi-fold doors would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area.’ Her decision was based on a personal opinion, rather than whether the proposal was within local and governmental guidelines and met the criteria laid down in planning policies.

The case officer, Mrs Collins, did not compare the two like for like applications against each other to see whether the previous reasons for refusal had been addressed, but to a previous approval that by the applicants own admission was incapable of implementation.

The changes need to be made from the top down. Again the recommendations should be tighter and more clear so that there is no misunderstanding on what is required from each individual officer.

Paragraph 5.1.1: The only additional documentation, submitted with planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 was the ‘Heritage Statement’ compiled by Richard James, Archaeology South-East. The additional site plan, which was irrelevant to the application on the table as it showed a previous scheme in relationship to the existing property ‘Rocklands House’ and not the actual plan requested that showed the existing bungalow in relationship to existing properties. The additional information submitted after the close for comments to be made was not written justification, but was letters written about accepted guidelines for holiday lets and a statement made by Mrs Guilliard that the property had been used as a holiday let since 1997. This contradicted an earlier application for a ‘Change of Use’ where the applicants stated that the property had been residential since 1900. A list of bookings for the previous holiday let had been provided, but this was not dated so should not have been used as evidence; the list of names and monies collected was typed and was not a copy from the actual bookings book. The written evidence was not specific to the proposal on the table and should have been rejected. The application should not have been verified without acceptable evidence being provided; especially, in light of the previous refusal.

The same plans were submitted with planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 as had been previously refused. It is understood that when an application is refused that the options open are to resubmit ‘revised’ plans that address the reason for refusal. The plans are normally marked ‘refused’ and should not be resubmitted.

Paragraph 5.1.2: This contradicts an earlier statement that people only noticed the development on the site after the landslide. The building is visible from the East Hill, the landslide did not reveal the building, it was the building’s prominence viewed from the Country Park and the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ that caused people concern.

Paragraph 5.1.4: The Conditions attached to planning application HS/FA/12/00952 were not discharged in October 2013 as stated in this report; this is when work commenced on the site. According to the application form submitted with planning application: HS/FA/14/00406 work started on 1 October 2013, the application to discharge the conditions, HS/CD/13/00792, was submitted on 8 October 2013 and discharged on 21 January 2014. The applicants started work on the site three months before the conditions were discharged. The report does not investigate HS/FA/11/43 and its false statement on residential usage.

10

Paragraph 5.1.5: The bungalow was a timber built building of an unknown date. Campaigners confirm that the building was timber built during the mid-1980s when they stayed there on holiday. Later brick editions were added in the late 1980s, as it is stated within the ‘Development Committee’ report submitted with application: HS/FA/89/01067, dated 21 August 1990, that the small bungalow was originally wooden built and that some renovation with brickwork had taken place. The proposal at the time was a revised scheme that replaced a proposal for a four bedroom property, and consisted on a small ground floor extension with a pitched roof and the raising of the roof of the existing structure to provide two bedrooms in the roof space. The report stated ‘those walls which are still of a wooden construction will be replaced with brickwork.’ It is not known whether the bungalow was rebuilt during the late 1980s or whether the original wooden bungalow was clad in brick facing. No planning permission seems to have been granted for these changes to the structure of the property and it not known whether building control was involved. Doubt has to be cast on the strength of the building and whether, as Mrs Guilliard confirms, it was capable of taking a second floor extension.

Paragraph 5.1.7: The planning application is incorrect and no reference is made into the way in which the two identical planning applications were treated.

Paragraph 5.2.2: Mrs Bahcheli makes reference to National Planning Practice Guideline which in theory should iron out any perceived problems before the application is submitted for consideration. Therefore, it is not understood why none of the suggestions and agreements made between the Development Control Manager and the applicants seemed to be addressed before the application was submitted for reconsideration. The case officer was still requesting further information up to a week before the application was determined. It is our opinion that the application should not have been validated until all of the requested information and evidence had been received. A list of requirements needed in order to determine that application had been decided over three months before the application pack was received.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/before-submitting-an-application/the-value-of-pre-application-engagement/

How can pre-application engagement improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system?

Pre-application engagement by prospective applicants offers significant potential to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system and improve the quality of planning applications and their likelihood of success. This can be achieved by:

providing an understanding of the relevant planning policies and other material considerations associated with a proposed development

working collaboratively and openly with interested parties at an early stage to identify, understand and seek to resolve issues associated with a proposed development

discussing the possible mitigation of the impact of a proposed development, including any planning conditions

identifying the information required to accompany a formal planning application, thus reducing the likelihood of delays at the validation stage. The information requested must be reasonable

The approach to pre-application engagement needs to be tailored to the nature of the proposed development and the issues to be addressed.

Mrs Bahcheli makes reference to pre-application discussions being encouraged by national and local government in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system. These services are not a free service for local businesses, and there are set fees for the different types of applications with additional costs for officers attending the meetings depending upon their seniority within the planning department.

Minor and Other applications (except householder applications, certificates of lawful development for householders, listed building consent and conservation area consent)

For minor applications, the fees from 01 April 2014 are as follows:

£223 plus VAT (£267.60) for a letter giving the without prejudice views of the planning authority prior to submitting a minor or other planning application

11

£446 plus VAT (£535.20) for a meeting with a senior planner and a letter giving the without prejudice views of the planning authority prior to submitting a minor or other planning application for a residential development of between 4 and 9 additional units or other minor applications as follows 

An additional charge of £112 plus VAT (£134.40) for each additional specialist officer attending a meeting

£223 plus VAT (£267.60) for a meeting with a senior planner and a letter giving the without prejudice views of the planning authority prior to submitting an application for a residential development of between 1 and 3 additional units, change of use of a property (other than residential) or for commercial extensions

£28 plus VAT (£33.60) for a meeting with a senior planner and a letter giving the without prejudice views of the planning authority prior to submitting an application relating to business premises where there is no increase in floorspace or change of use (for example a new shopfront).

There is no paperwork within the files that show that these fees were collected; in fact the applicants deny that a pre-application discussion took place.

Paragraph 5.2.5: Mrs Bahcheli makes reference to the ‘Council’s Statement of Community Consultation’, adopted in September 2011, but does not stipulate where this document can be located, and does not quote the text from the actual passage (Paragraph 5.11). The version that is on the website has been updated (2014) and refers to community involvement on controversial planning applications. Hastings Borough Council’s ‘Council’s Statement of Community Consultation’, Paragraph 5.11 on the updated version states:

‘It is at this early stage that in discussing planning applications that we will encourage potential developers to engage with the local people before a significant planning application is submitted.’

Mrs Bahcheli has only taken passages from documents that are weighted towards the developer or the applicants and neglects to include passages from the document that include community involvement and how they can have their say on how controversial planning applications are dealt with.

‘5.0 Involvement in Development Management

5.1 Hastings Borough Council has, for many years, had the policy of consulting neighbouring residents and other occupiers about planning applications which directly affect them. Law was introduced in 1992 which made it mandatory for Local Planning Authorities to publicise all planning applications. This provides an opportunity for public participation in the planning process once an application has been submitted.

5.2 The Local Plan system requires us to do more to enable community involvement in planning applications. Through SCI, (Statement of Community Involvement) we will show how we hope to provide opportunities for public engagement before an application has been submitted, as well as detailing how member of the community can become involved once an application has been submitted.

5.3 This section is divided into four parts:

What is regarded as a ‘major’ or ‘controversial’ application will require higher levels of community engagement.

What is regarded as a major or controversial planning application?

5.6 A controversial application is one where there is likely to be concern in terms of potential social, economic or environmental impacts on the community affected by the proposals. This would cover proposals which may not be significant in size, but may be significant in impact. Development Management officers have discretion to request pre-application community engagement where it is viewed that there is a potential for controversy. Whether or not an application is determined to be controversial will be at the discretion of the Development Manager.’

Could there not be more community involvement in controversial planning applications so that the local residents can have a say on local development projects that affect the wider community? Everything is weighted against the local residents as it seems that it is at the discretion of the Development Manager whether applications are deemed to be ‘Controversial’ and it is up to the Development Manager to approach the developer to request pre-application community engagement, but there is no obligation for the developer to accept the request.

12

Paragraph 5.2.6: The note of the pre-application meeting that took place between the Development Control Manager, Mr Crawford, the applicants and their agent is not available online it is only held within the paper files held at Aquila House.

Paragraph 5.2.7: Although this additional evidence was requested in August 2013 this evidence was not presented with the identical application that was submitted for reconsideration in December 2013. The only additional information was the ‘Heritage Statement’. All other requested information, outlined in the pre-application discussion, had still not been presented until after the consultation period had ended. The application was determined without some of the requested information being submitted at all. Although it can be argued that these pre-application discussions are helpful in paving the way for future planning proposals, and to ensure that the necessary documentation is present when the application is submitted this did not happen in this case and the case officer had difficulty in obtaining the requested documentation within an acceptable timeframe. The applicants stated in the subsequent application pack that a pre-application discussion had not taken place. The closing date for consultations was 8 January 2013. Further supporting evidence was received on 23 January 2013, revised ‘Design and Access Statement’ on 24 January 2013 and additional site plan 11.396/02 on 26 January 2013.

Paragraph 5.2.8: This does not explore the fact that the Development Control Manager signed of the delegated officer’s report for the previous refusal, and was advising how this subsequent planning application could be approved with additional changes to the proposal, only three weeks later. Mr Crawford obviously agreed that the previous reasons for refusal were correct, or he would have challenged the officer’s decision. There were only superficial changes made, and requests for further information to make the proposal acceptable; the only suggested evidence supplied was the ‘Heritage Statement’ and none of the additional amendments were taken on board by the applicants. Questions have to be asked on why this additional evidence was not asked for when the previous identical application was still on the table. The application was still within the acceptable timeframe for an application to be determined, and if all that was necessary was additional supporting evidence, then this could be supplied within the timeframe or an extension time confirmed. It is our suggestion that the reasons for the refusal of planning application: HS/FA/12/00471 were not addressed in the subsequent planning application and should not been approved.

Paragraph 5.2.9: This information was never provided.

Paragraph 5.3.3: It is stated in this paragraph that the date that application: HS/FA/12/00952 was advertised in the ‘Hastings Observer’ was 21 December 2012 which would have made the closing date for comments and objections 18 January 2013 and not 8 January 2013 stated on the neighbour notification letters.

HS/FA/12/00952 – Proposed Demolition of current holiday let and replacement of a new holiday letApplication Dated: 7 December 2012Application Received: 10 December 2012Consolation Period: 11 December 2012 - 08 January 2013

The Planning Practice Guidance – Consultation and pre-decision matters (Table 1) is dated 6 Mar 2014 and is marked as a revision. HS/FA/13/00952 was submitted on 7 December 2012 and the consultation period was from 11 December 2012 – 8 January 2013.

Therefore, the table used as evidence that the correct procedures were followed in terms of consultation is not applicable as it is dated after the consultation period ended.

The 25 additional neighbour notification letters were sent to the 25 households who had objected to the application prior to the developers submitting ‘revised’ plans. The re-consultation was considered necessary as the initial drawings were incorrect and misleading. This re-consultation was only considered necessary as the applicants had submitted flawed plans and had neglected to include all of the ‘amendments’ within the proposal.

Paragraph 5.3.4: It is only a known site for posting planning notifications after the evident, as it is now known that the notification for HS/FA/12/00952 was posted in the same location as the previously refused application notification poster. The ‘site notice’ was posted in Rocklands Lane, opposite the caravan park entrance and referred to replacement holiday let accommodation. The site of the actual development was 250 yards as the crow flies from the actual site, and we would have thought by the description of the poster ‘SITE NOTICE’ that it should have been posted on site or in the immediate vicinity. The area used is in Rocklands Lane and the notice could have related to works to the lane or to the adjacent Country Park. When viewed, the site notice for HS/FA/14/00406 was partially hidden by dense vegetation. The development affected a wider audience than the immediate neighbours as it is adjacent to and overlooking the Country Park. One of the requests made by objectors was that better information is provided on development of this nature, it not sufficient to say that Mrs Bahcheli considers that notice posted a considerable distance from the site is in her opinion acceptable. We thought that part of Mrs Bahcheli’s remit was to see how the planning procedure can be improved in the future as the current procedures, although acceptable under government legislations, are not working.

13

Paragraph 5.3.5: Again this quote does not refer to the relevant passage in the ‘The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement’ (2011) updated version 2014.

Paragraph 5.3.7: Mrs Bahcheli makes reference to common practice in urban areas where adjacent neighbours are notified of impending planning applications, presumably in these cases there is an accessible site boundary where the notices are posted and letters are posted to immediate neighbours advising them of any applications that might affect them or their property. The application site for the two-storey holiday let is adjacent to the Country Park and its location affects the setting from the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’, the Country Park and Ecclesbourne Glen. Household notification was sent to two households, one of which is located within Rocklands Holiday Caravan Park and is in their ownership. The other notification letter was sent to the Chairman of ‘Friends of the Country Park’ and as it was Christmas time, he was out of the country, and could not respond. In this case the notification letters should have been more wide spread and the site notice more prominent. Mrs Bahcheli has left notes to herself in the report that have not been removed in the final copy.

Paragraph 5.3.11: The address at 36 Collier Road is for the ex-Chairman of ‘Friends of the Country Park’ and that is the only note of them being informed of the application. The letter was addressed to the occupant of 36 Collier Road and not addressed to either a named person or ‘The Friends of the Country Park’. Mr Peak was on holiday, but may have had his post collected, and it might have been forwarded on had it been addressed to the ‘Friends’. The Old Town Preservation Society is not on the distribution list for HS/FA/12/00952 or any other planning application listed in this report.

Paragraph 5.3.12: Mrs Bahcheli has not said which councillor was contacted and we are not aware of any communication with either the ‘Friends of the Country Park’ or the Old Town Residents’ Association. It is understood that the ‘Clive Vale Residents’ Association’ was contacted but the Chairman was on holiday at the time - this has not been confirmed. Consultation should be the responsibility of the case officer and the Development Management team, and with controversial planning applications a wider audience should be consulted. The Country Park is for the use of the wider community and any impact on its setting is not just confined to the immediate neighbours.

Paragraph 5.3.13: It is agreed that it is difficult to speculate that if the application had been more widely publicised that there might have been more objections made at the time, but as there were over 400 valid objections to the ‘revised’ retrospective planning application, it cannot be speculated that had a wider audience been aware of the initial proposal that they would not have objected. Is this not a fault in the planning process that people are not aware of the proposals, until it is too late to do anything about it? Is this not one of the things that Mrs Bahcheli has been asked to address in her report? How could any objector know that the initial proposal would be changed out of all recognition? Even the third party consultees did not know that the developers would not build to the approved plans and were swayed by the ‘Heritage Statement’ that the holiday let would be smaller than the existing property that was screened from all aspects of the Country Park by dense tree and hedge screening and the topography of the land. Many people asked were not even aware that the old bungalow was there until they removed the tree screening. Many people did not even know that there was a caravan park there until many, many trees were felled. If 952 had gone to the planning committee and the committee used the same criterias as for 406 then 952 would have been refused.

Mrs Bahcheli has not made any recommendations on how controversial planning applications are handled in the future. There are written guidelines on community involvement in the Council’s own publication but the Council do not seem to heed to their own advice.

Paragraph 5.3.14: It appears as if nothing has changed, or will change as a result of this report as the Council does not seem to be prepared to go over and above what is legally required in planning procedures. After the ‘retrospective’ planning application was refused there was a public outcry and promises made that it will not happen again – ‘it cannot be allowed to happen again’ was the cry. This came from the top down from local councillors and prospective MPs. It now seems as if, after the event, that it will be business as usual and nothing will change.

The Council used to send of lists of new applications to local communities and Residents’ Associations but this facility has been stopped and it is up to the relevant parties to search through the weekly list that might affect themselves or the local community. Could this facility not be reinstated? Surely a weekly posting through email is not too time consuming or expensive.

Paragraph 5.3.16: Natural England were not consulted on planning application HS/FA/12/00952 so therefore the system outlined in Mrs Bahcheli ‘Development Management Procedure (England) Order 2010 (as amended 2013), Table Schedule 5 is not working.

Paragraph 5.3.17: ‘English Heritage’ did not wish to comment on the application, but requested that national and local policy guidance was followed in the determination of the application. They also recommended that specialist

14

conservation advice was followed. English Heritage were consulted using false and misleading data and inadequate plans.

The application(s) should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice. It is not necessary for us to be consulted again on this application. However, if you would like further advice, please contact us to explain your request. We can then let you know if we are able to help further and agree a timetable with you.

This letter is not written in the tone that is suggested by Mrs Bahcheli in her report, as he was not dismissing the case out of hand but was referring the case officer back to their own specialist’s advice. We are not sure who he is referring to but perhaps it was Archaeology at East Sussex County Council. Perhaps the case officer could have asked for clarification?

Paragraph 5.3.18: ‘Natural England’ stated in a letter that as they were not consulted on the original planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 that they did not think that it was appropriate to comment on the ‘revised’ planning application. There is nothing to say that had they been aware of the original planning application that they might not have objected or recommended conditions to be added such as additional tree screening so that the SSSI site was not compromised by unsympathetic development. Mrs Bahcheli has no right to suggest that they would not have responded to the initial planning application had they been given the chance. The case officer was wrong in not contacting them in the first place as it is within the Council’s written guidelines that ‘Natural England’ are contacted on proposals that may affect a SSSI site.

Paragraph 5.3.19: Again this decision was based upon false and misleading documents. We assert that the AONB were not able to judge the impact of the new development from the documents provided.

Paragraph 5.3.20: High Weald AONB based their decision not to oppose the subsequent planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 on further submitted evidence that was not within the original documentation; they relied heavily on the author of ‘Heritage Statement’ being correct in his views that there would only be a slight adverse effect on the setting from the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’. The ‘Heritage Statement’ stated that the proposed building would be on the same footprint as the existing building, only smaller and would be screened by dense vegetation and the topography of the land. The only area considered to be visible from the adjacent properties/caravans was addressed by a ‘suitably worded condition’. Other recommendations made by the author of the ‘Heritage Statement’ were ignored but AONB were not to know this at the time of consultation.

Paragraph 5.3.21: We find the remarks made by Mrs Bahcheli against High Weald AONB unjustified as she is stating that she cannot comprehend why their opinions had changed so much when commenting on the two identical planning applications, when it is obvious that Mr Shaw relied heavily on the subsequent submitted evidence compiled by Mr James. Mrs Bahcheli is not critical of the case officer, Mrs Collins, who also was persuaded to approve HS/FA/12/00952 on the basis of further submitted evidence.

Paragraph 5.3.22: This should have been investigated by planning. AONB objected strongly to the ‘retrospective’ planning application: HS/FA/14/00406 as it was their concern the increased building size would have an adverse effect on the AONB landscape and the surrounding area. Their valid comments were ignored in the decision making process.

‘The revised High Weald AONB Management Plan adopted by partners on 31st March 2014 makes reference in para 2.3 (p19) and in the Statement of Significance (p26) to the value people place on the scenic beauty of the AONB landscape and to their enjoyment of its special qualities including the views to and from the AONB, and the tranquillity and intimacy of its landscape. This application by extending the balcony and increasing the physical mass and obtrusiveness of the construction has materially changed the scale and impact of the development, from that previously commented upon.

On balance, I consider that the development, in such a visible and sensitive location, will have a serious impact on people’s enjoyment of the AONB special qualities and will not contribute to conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the area. ‘

Paragraph 5.3.23: AONB relied on the evidence that was submitted at the time, which was in the form of a ‘Heritage Statement’ compiled by Archaeology South East. The author of the ‘Heritage Statement’, Richard James, admitted that he was unsure of the actual height of the property as there were no comparable drawings. The additional site plan, drawing number: 11.396/02 that showed a previously approved scheme in relationship to the existing building, Rocklands House, was not submitted until after the consultation period had ended.

15

Planning Application: HS/FA/14/00406 was promoted as a ‘minor material amendment’ to vary the approved plans, and drawings submitted at the time did not show the full extent of the changes to be made, there were other factors revealed during the consultation period. There were many, many objection letters written at the time that stated that the drawings submitted did not fully reflect the changes that had been made without valid planning permission.

It cannot be second guessed why AONB objected to the ‘revised’ proposal, other than it was now known that information held in the ‘Heritage Statement’ was incorrect and that the building was not to be small scale, and was not within the footprint of the existing building, and was not heavily screened by dense vegetation.

Paragraph 5.3.24: The ‘Heritage Statement’, once again, was a contributing factor in third party representatives not objecting to the resubmitted application: HS/FA/12/00952. The ‘Heritage Statement’ stated that the new proposal would be on the same footprint as the existing property and pointed out that the bungalow that currently occupied the site was the third development within the same footprint. Mr James, author of the report, used his analysis on evidence from Ordnance Survey Maps that showed buildings on the site over different periods. The actual building profile might have changed, but the footprint was basically the same. It was stated in the ‘Heritage Statement’ that development had cut into the ‘Iron Age’ rampart in the 19 th Century and that no further cutting was proposed on the submitted plans. It is evident from the drawings submitted with the ‘Heritage Statement’ that original buildings on the application site had been built within the footprint of the ‘Iron Age Hill Fort’. This was a time before planning permissions were required and the significance of the now ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ was known. Mr Chuter, Archaeology ESCC, based his comments on information held in the ‘Heritage Statement’ that after three phases of development on the same site there was unlikely to be any significant archaeological remains. It is his opinion that modern development has wiped out any significant archaeological deposits as any significant finds would have been buried underground.

Again the heritage statement is based upon unclear plans and false statements about the size of the building. The heritage statement does state that they were unable to assess the height of the building – this is a clear indication that the plans were unusable and consultees relied on the inaccurate statements of size. The approved plans show a considerable increase in footprint. This larger footprint intrudes into the SAM and therefore invalidates the statement that “I do not believe any archaeological remains are likely to be affected”.

Paragraph 5.3.25: It is not known at this stage whether Archaeology at East Sussex County Council will object to an application to regularise the unauthorised building until the consultation letters are sent out and received. It is now known that the building has been built on a different footprint to the approved plans, and is on a different alignment. The building is also at least 3 metres closer to the existing ‘Rocklands House’ and has now encroached onto previously unsurveyed land. The site is within an ‘Archaeological Notification Area’ which under normal circumstances would have required an archaeological survey prior to construction. The developer by their actions has denied proper procedures to be followed – it is not known whether any significant archaeological deposits or finds were lost as no care was taken in the initial construction process.

Paragraph 5.3.26: This is a personal address of Mr Peak. The friends have a separate contact address which should have been used. We do not believe this was directed to the friends specifically.

Paragraph 5.3.27: Mr Peak, ex-Chairman of ‘Friends of the Country Park’, was on holiday at the time that neighbour notification letters were sent out for planning application: HS/FA/12/00952. The application was submitted over the Christmas period when most people are too busy to worry about, or respond to planning notices, even if they had seen them. The application was advertised on Friday 21 December 2013 when the office would have been closed for business over the Christmas period. This is not an ideal scenario as there would have been no available contact for at least a week during the consultation period. The consultation period was incorrectly recorded and should have expired on 18 January 2013.

Paragraph 5.3.29: Mr Boorman was asked by the Development Control Manager, Raymond Crawford, to submit evidence in support of the holiday let proposal. It is agreed that the letter was a personal reference rather than a comment on the forthcoming proposal. The letter from Mr Boorman overstates the effect on tourism. The two storey holiday let was to replace an already established holiday let unit on the same site. The increased building size was not built to accommodate more tourists; it is just a larger family unit. The real effect on tourism in Hastings because of the closure of Ecclesbourne Glen has not been mentioned in Mrs Bahcheli’s report – it is understood by local guesthouses and hotels that their residents are bitterly disappointed that they cannot do the walks promoted in local tourism brochures.

Paragraph 5.3.30: It is agreed that the letter was a personal reference in support of the applicants and their business but it should not have been used as a reason for passing the application. It was one of the main reasons that swayed

16

the decision maker into passing the resubmitted application. This should have been discounted as a material consideration as it is not specific to the proposal that was later submitted – this is a significant flaw in the decision making process. Mr Boorman should have been told that his reference could not be used in the decision making process as it was irrelevant to the application that was later submitted. There is no record of the letter Mr Crawford sent to Mr Boorman outlining what Mr Crawford was requesting of him. It should have been made clear in the letter that Mr Boorman was only commenting on the effect any new proposal would have on local tourism. The effect has been over stated as 5,000 jobs are not to be created by this proposal as the applicants state that it is a family run business with no extra staff employed. We do not know why Mr Boorman is being criticised for being helpful – it is not in his remit to understand planning protocol.

Paragraph 5.3.31: The letter from Mr Boorman was used as evidence in the decision making process and was one of the main reasons that this application was approved. The letter pre-dated the date that the new proposal was submitted and did not refer specifically to the proposal to be decided. Mr Boorman had not seen the plans so was unable to judge what the actual proposal was.

Paragraph 5.3.32: Mr James, author of the ‘Heritage Statement’, advised that the Resources Manager, Murray Davidson, be contacted to comment on the likely adverse effect this proposal might have on the views from the Country Park and Ecclesbourne Glen – this comment was not heeded to. If Mr Davidson had been contacted he might have objected or advised that further conditions were imposed to protect the views from the Country Park and Ecclesbourne Glen.

Paragraph 5.4.1: That remains our position; it is based upon empirical evidence. It seems to us to be impossible to judge the size of the building based upon a resized .pdf document which has no scale and does not include the building that it is replacing.

17

Paragraph 5.4.2: The list is very incomplete

Plans:

Scale not mentioned Contradicts Design and Access Statement Block plans exaggerates size of building Block plan shows bungalow in the wrong place Site plan inconsistent with block plan Width of bungalow on plans exaggerated Relative position of building incorrect

Paragraph 5.4.3: This list is incomplete. A scale bar on plans is mandatory. None of the submitted drawings have a scale bar. Information taken from the Council’s own web page

http://www.hastings.gov.uk/environment_planning/planning/info_advice/submit_applications/

States the following:

C: Drawings Drawings are submitted in single layer .pdf Where possible drawings are A3 size You do not provide drawings with optional scales at different paper sizes Scanned drawings are a minimum 200 dpi resolution A list of drawings is supplied to include drawing number, description and paper size Critical dimensions checked on .pdf and are in scale Orientation of .pdf drawings are correct when viewed on screen A scale bar and key dimensions is included on all drawings

The lack of a scale bar is one of the major reasons that the consultees could not judge the size of the building. Mrs Bahcheli has ignored this in her report completely. Mrs Bahcheli has provided a very long list but misses out the key element used in our complaint. The lack of existing elevations is not commented on by Mrs Bahcheli.

Paragraph 5.4.4: Mrs Bahcheli does not list which cases she is referring to and does not stipulate which lists of requirements she is referring to. How can improvements within the planning system be made if the comments are too general and are not self-explanatory.

Paragraph 5.4.5: Mrs Bahcheli, earlier in her report, stated that there was no evidence of tree removal on the application site but in this paragraph states that the submitted documentation and photographs clearly showed trees surrounding the site. The author of the ‘Heritage Statement’ relied on the photographic evidence submitted with the application when compiling his report, as all photographs submitted showed that the existing bungalow was hidden from important aspects by the surrounding dense vegetation. A tree survey would have been able to identify any species of tree already on the site and its height and condition at the time of the survey. This would then have proved that significant numbers of trees had been removed prior to construction, and would have aided in any enforcement action over breaches of conditions.

It was stated by Enforcement that the trees removed prior to construction were not protected by the conditions attached to the planning approval and were not within a conservation area. Neither of these statements is correct as the condition attached to the permission was on the understanding that the trees identified on the submitted approved drawings would remain. The site is adjacent to the ‘Old Town Conservation Area’ and is an ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ where policies that protect the trees and their surrounding areas are relevant.

The statement made in the application form that there are no trees on the site or on the adjacent land is materially incorrect; the case officer was aware of the trees and dense hedgerow as she makes reference to it in her delegated officer’s report. Mrs Collins should have asked for a tree survey to be performed prior to determining the application.

‘Tree Constraints Plan

All developers should be aware that:

“…Whenever trees or hedges are on or adjacent to a proposed development site details must be submitted in accordance with BS5837” (The Validation of Planning Applications: Guidance for Local Planning Authorities, DCLG December 2007).

18

The need for tree surveys derives from the legal duty that local planning authorities have:

“…to ensure, whenever it is appropriate, that in granting planning permission for any development adequate provision is made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees”  (Section 197 of The Town & Country Planning Act 1990).

The advent of the National Standard Application Form (1APP) in 2008 means that planning applications must provide answers to the following questions:

Are there trees or hedges on the proposed development site?

Are there trees or hedges on land adjacent to the proposed development site that could influence the development or might be important as part of the local landscape character?

If the answer to either or both of these questions is “yes”, the local planning authority will require a full tree survey in accordance with the current BS5837.’

This is a major oversight by the planning officer who should have been more diligent when viewing submitted documentation.

Paragraph 5.4.6: The author of the ‘Heritage Statement’, Richard James, stated that he was unable to compare the actual height of the proposed building as there were no comparable drawings. He relied heavily on the developer’s agent’s statement that the proposal would be small scale. There is no scale on the plans. Given that the plans were distributed as rescaled .pdfs then it is impossible to scale the building. Please can it be explained how consultees could read plans properly with no scale and no access to original drawings?

Paragraph 5.4.7: Mrs Bahcheli comments on the factual errors recorded in the submitted drawings, and comments on the fact that the new proposal is not on the same footprint as the existing bungalow. These statements were used in the ‘Heritage Statement’ and were one of the major reasons for the building’s approval. This information was materially false and shows that false information was provided by the applicants in order to get the application approved. We cannot see how in an earlier comment Mrs Bahcheli absolves the applicants from any blame and stated that in her opinion the developers did not attempt to deceive. The size of the original bungalow was overstated and the size of the replacement building understated; this misinformation caused confusion to the consultees who could not possibly realise from the submitted plans how large and imposing this building would eventually be and what impact it would have on the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument, the AONB and the Country Park. There has been no comparison made between the size of the original bungalow and the building it replaced. A table of measurements made between the different buildings shows the dimensions of the original bungalow, compared to the approved proposal and what was finally built – there is a stark difference that needs to be explained.

Paragraph 5.4.9: The information requested by the case officer was not received, or was insufficient to satisfy an approval decision. The evidence provided was not what was requested, and fell short of the officer’s requirements. The suggested business plan, and evidence that the existing building did not meet the requirements necessary for holiday let accommodation, was not specific to the bungalow, but were general tourism requirements for holiday let accommodation in general. The case officer recommended approval without the necessary information being provided. This is a critical point, but it is not explained in greater detail. It has not been confirmed why the case officer did not insist on the requested evidence being supplied, or why she decided to approve without all of the required evidence being received.

Paragraph 5.4.10: We agree that the submitted document falls short of the national requirement for a planning application. The case officer was still asking for evidence the week before the planning application was decided. It is my opinion that the application should not have been verified until all requested documentation had been received. Much is made of the Council’s decision to disallow comments made by the public after the consultation period has expired, the same rule should apply to the developers.

Paragraph 5.4.11: The section plan showed a previous planning permission that was incapable of implementation, although relevant to the planning history of the site it should not have been used as an argument to pass the application. The case officer asked for plans of the existing bungalow in relationship to the existing property ‘Rocklands House’. It would have been more appropriate to submit both, so that the full impact of the new property was known. The bungalow extension, although taller than the existing property, was on the same footprint and would not have needed the removal of many trees and would not have encroached onto the ‘Schedule Ancient Monument’. The applicants changed the date of the bungalow extension approval so it appeared as if the application had recently been approved 5 October 2012 instead of 2010. The case officer asked for a revised ‘Design and Access Statement’ to correct the error, but the incorrect statement was posted on line instead of the ‘revised’ version. The corrected

19

version in held within the paper files and is marked ‘amended’. The submitted plans overstate the bungalow extension size and under emphasises the new two storey proposal.

Paragraph 5.4.12: None of the submitted drawings had actual measurements against them. The building had to be measured using a scale ruler. It is stated in paragraph 5.4.3 that there is a legal requirement for plans of the proposed development in relationship to the site boundaries and other existing buildings on site with written dimensions. The plans did not show that the building had been moved closer to the south-west boundary or that that the property had been relocated to be nearer to the existing property, ‘Rocklands House’. Previous plans for the site show that the old bungalow was 8 metres from the boundary between the site and the Country Park. If there had been written dimensions provided on the submitted drawings then the case officer would not have needed to check the actual dimensions. The section plan does not show exact dimensions and does not show how the existing bungalow relates to ‘Rocklands House’, which was requested by the case officer. The bungalow was not directly in line with the existing property, the drawing implies that it is.

Paragraph 5.4.13: We think that this paragraph contradicts the previous paragraphs where Mrs Bahcheli comments on the lack of sufficient documentation; the lack of proper site plans; no actual dimensions; the direction of north, etc. It is the fault of the case officer for not checking that the submitted documentation was sufficient to come to an informed decision, but some of the blame must be laid at the door of the developer. The developer, through their agent, led third party consultees into believing that the new building would be small scale and would be screened by dense vegetative screening. We agree that the case officer should have asked for a higher level of information, but the inaccuracies within the submitted information must be the fault of the developer and not the case officer. Mrs Bahcheli stated in the previous plans that it was not down to the case officer to check the actual dimensions. This paragraph is complete nonsense and does not conclude how Mrs Bahcheli came to the conclusion that the applicants had not attempted to deceive. The submitted evidence within our documentation suggests otherwise. Deliberate falsehoods were given on the ‘Use’ of the property; the tree screening evidence was false and misleading; the supplied evidence did not meet the requirements requested in the pre-application discussions and was materially false; numerous errors in the submitted plans; errors in ‘Design and Access Statement’.

Paragraph 5.4.14: The lack of objection to the scheme was not due to a lack of understanding of the proposal. It has been stated on many occasions that the reason that there were no written objections was that the general public were unaware of the new proposal. Mr Peak was on holiday when the neighbour notification letters were posted and the application was put in the ‘Hastings Observer’ over the Christmas holiday period. Mr Peak objected to the previous proposal as he was aware of it at the time. The other objectors were third party consultees.

The Council had the original plans and yet they still consistently failed to state the correct size of the building. The exact measurements of the building were not confirmed until the Standen report was received. Mr Crawford gave incorrect measurement during the planning committee meeting mistaking 5 cm for 55 cms. The actual height of the building is at least 59 cms greater. The public objected to the proposal on location and impact on the landscape NOT on details taken from the plans.

Paragraph 5.5.1: The planning application number is incorrect as it is HS/FA/12/00952. 00592 relates to a 1.83 m fence erection to the front garden of a property in Helenswood Road. HS/FA/12/00952 was decided on 13 February 2013 and not 4 February 2013.

Paragraph 5.5.2: Mrs Bahcheli does not investigate other local policies that should have been considered in determining the applications. Several Local Development Plan policies which were checked in the previous refusal were not considered when the subsequent planning application was accepted. These policies are breached by the new development:

EN1 Build and Historic environmentEN4 Conservation and enhancement of landscape

Also, relevant policies in the LDP were not taken into consideration when planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 was accepted. The following is a list of policies that should have been considered when the resubmitted planning application was determined:

DG7 High or visually prominent buildings DG8 Protection of Views DG21 Development on unstable land DG27 Surface water L7 The undeveloped coast NC1 Hastings cliffs special area of conservation NC2 Sites of special scientific interest NC3 Local Nature Reserves

20

NC6 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance NC7 The green network NC8 General planning requirements NC9 Information to accompany planning applications NC10 Ancient woodland OS1 Protection of Open spaces T5 Self-catering accommodation T6 Caravan and camping sites

The possible effect of noise pollution from the residents on the large balconies was not taken into account, and neither was the possible effect of light pollution from the building – the property has very large windows on all elevations, and there is now insufficient tree and hedge screening around the property. The dense screening, that surrounding the original bungalow, was removed to accommodate the much larger building; the tree and hedge screening would not only have reduced the visual impact, but would also have created a buffer between the new building and the Country Park. A planning application has since been submitted to reduce the screening even more which will have a further detrimental effect as the building will be more exposed causing more likelihood of noise and light pollution. Light and noise pollution is likely to be detrimental to the environment and wildlife of the country park.

Paragraph 5.5.4: Only 2 omissions are mentioned. It is not explained why all the other policies listed in our submission are not considered relevant.

Paragraph 5.5.6: Ground conditions are now covered under Policy DM5. DG21 has been incorporated into the new policy.

‘Ground conditions

2.26 Where a site is affected by contamination or instability, responsibility for a safe development rests with the developer and local authorities cannot refuse planning permission on these grounds alone. National planning guidance states that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, local authorities should ensure that the development is appropriate for its location and that the site itself is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability (paragraphs 120 and 121 of the National Planning Policy Framework - NPPF).

2.27 The NPPF also requires planning authorities to seek to ensure that when remediation measures are undertaken, the land should, post development, not be capable of being determined as 'contaminated land' under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. (Paragraph 121) The Planning Authority therefore needs to be satisfied that, where it is necessary, ground conditions and contaminants have been fully taken into account in proposals for development.

2.28 Conditions will be applied to planning decisions that will prevent the commencement of development until the Council is satisfied that ground conditions and any identified remediation or mitigation measures are acceptable for it to begin. These conditions will be in accordance with policy DM5 below, and should be read in conjunction with Policies SC1, and where appropriate SC2, of the Planning Strategy.

Policy DM5 – Ground Conditions

Assessments of existing ground conditions should be undertaken, and details submitted to the Local Planning Authority under the following circumstances:

Land Instability

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 development takes place. This evidence is to show that any actual or potential instability can be overcome through appropriate remedial, preventative or precautionary measures. At the application stage, for those sites with a recorded history of instability, information about the extent of remediation and/or mitigation measures will be required. Any further detail that may be required will be conditioned.

The written policy states that planning applications on sites that have a history of land stability should have convincing supporting evidence from a relevant, or suitably qualified profession, and that this must be supplied prior to development taking place. The evidence is to show that any actual or potential instability can be overcome through the appropriate remedial, preventative or precautionary measure. This information must be received at the application stage, and prior to development taking place. We agree that these measures should have been taken prior to planning application HS/FA/12/00952 being determined, but we fail to understand how ‘suitably worded

21

conditions’ relating to possible land instability on the site can be imposed after development has commenced and is almost complete. There was written evidence in the ‘Heritage Statement’ that there was slumping in the garden area of the proposed building and to the rear of the property. There was also evidence that Badger activity was causing further slumping. These relevant points were ignored in the determination of the original planning application.

Paragraph 5.5.8: Policy L1 is applicable and should have been considered. We do not think that it is appropriate to say that omissions of relevant policies are acceptable if they are broadly covered in other similarly worded policies.

‘Policy L1 - Landscape Character

Planning permission will not be granted for developments which would substantially compromise the distinctive landscape setting of the town, particularly the landscape structure of gills, woods and open spaces, and the relationship and clear division between the unspoilt coastline of the Country Park and the surrounding countryside and the built-up area.’

Paragraph 5.5.9: The development is on the boundary between Rocklands Caravan Holiday Park and the Country Park. It has been reported by many members of the public that since the tree removal that there is considerable light pollution from the site. The proposed building is now closer to the south-west boundary of the property and therefore there is likely to be more noise and light pollution from the property. The building is fully visible during the daytime due to the size, location and significant tree removal. There should be some sort of buffer screening that separates the new property from the Country Park. DM6 is a relevant policy and this should be considered in any further proposals for the same site.

Pollution and Hazards

2.29 Where a development has the potential to create pollution to land or water environments, it is important to consider this at an early stage to keep its effects to a minimum. Lighting, noise, smell, hazardous and non-hazardous substances and airborne particulates are all potential pollutants and their impact in new development must be properly assessed. Airborne pollutants are a particular issue in the Air Quality Management Area in Bexhill Road/Bulverhythe.

2.30 Sometimes pre-existing sources of pollution or specific hazards need to be taken into account when proposals are made, in these cases the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are able to advise potential applicants about these. The Council will use the advice of the HSE in its decision making process.

2.31 Policy DM6 describes the Council’s expectations for minimising of pollution from development. This policy should be read in conjunction with Policy SC1, and where appropriate, SC2 of the Planning Strategy.

Policy DM6 – Pollution and Hazards

Planning permission will only be granted for development providing:

External lighting proposals avoid unnecessary light pollution beyond the specific area intended to be lit.

The level of airborne pollutants caused by the proposed development does not exceed statutory guidelines, unless appropriate mitigation measures are agreed.

Noise and smell that is detrimental to neighbouring and/or local amenity is kept to a practical minimum; appropriate means of assessment may be required.

Appropriate pollution control measures are incorporated where necessary to protect both ground and surface waters.

Applicants will be required to supply convincing supporting evidence (from a relevant and suitably qualified professional) that any actual or potential pollution can be overcome through appropriate remedial, preventative or precautionary measures…’

Paragraph 5.5.12: Mrs Bahcheli lists the four main reasons for the refusal of planning application HS/FA/12/00471 that were noted on the ‘Decision Notice’ but she does not mention any of the other policies that should have been considered during the determination process. There are other policies that should have been considered and listed as a reason for refusal.

Paragraph 5.5.13: Mrs Bahcheli asks a very valid question in 'does the report to HS/FA/12/00952 justify recommending a different decision for the same proposal as HS/FA/12/00471?’ but does not seem to provide a detailed answer.

22

Paragraph 5.5.16: Mrs Bahcheli points out that both reporting officers for the two identical proposals identified a degree of overlooking from the new property to the existing properties but came to different conclusions. Again the report compiled in respect of HS/FA/12/00952 is based on a personal opinion and is not based on written guidelines or local policies. Mrs Collins was not considering the privacy of the future occupants of the new property; the holiday let tenants of the new flats or the residents of ‘Rocklands House’ when forming her decision.

Amenity

2.11 Amenity is a broad term that can encompass protection from unacceptable impacts on an area as a whole or on neighbouring occupants, for example avoiding loss of privacy, overshadowing and loss of daylight.

2.12 Amenity also includes layout and proportions (internal and external) of buildings. Amenity is a term that is also used to describe the spaces between buildings, the public spaces that, when well maintained, help to increase a person’s sense of wellbeing. Amenity, then, is a crucial issue to consider with proposals and Policy DM3 offers guidance towards the Council’s expectations.

2.13 Hastings has a variety of housing types at different densities for different people. What constitutes a good living environment for a person living alone will differ from that of a family. Their needs are also very likely to be different.

2.14 The management of the spaces between buildings can also help to contribute to objectives of environmental sustainability. Green infrastructure, policy EN2 of the Planning Strategy, is a crucial part of development proposals that can safeguard biodiversity, natural features and wildlife habitats.

2.15 Despite differences in size, tenure and density, it is important that all homes in the Borough are of high quality. This is, indeed, also Objective 2 of the Planning Strategy and, as such, amenity is closely linked to policies SC1, SC2 and H1 of the Planning Strategy.

2.16 As well as the design Policy DM1, Policy DM3 will also provide guidance, in no particular order, towards what the Council believes to be a decent home that safeguards the amenity of its inhabitants, neighbours and the local community.

2.17 The Council may deem it necessary to reference national guidance on housing quality, particularly that from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), who cite the Housing Quality Indicators of 2008 as a good grounding for assessing the standard of proposed new homes. As with design, this is a dynamic and changing subject area. It is, however, considered that a standard for internal space that is appropriate in new build housing is to provide at least a minimum of liveable space. The management and orientation of that space can be negotiated on a site specific basis.

2.18 Although parts of Policy DM3 are specifically worded for new housing schemes, any proposal that may have an impact on amenity will be assessed using the appropriate parts of the policy.

Policy DM3 – General Amenity

In order to achieve a good living standard for future users of proposed development and its neighbours it should be demonstrated that amenity has been considered and appropriate solutions have been incorporated into schemes. Permission will be given for development where:

a) The use of the scale, form, height, mass, and density of any building or buildings, to reduces or avoids any adverse impact on the amenity (privacy, over shadowing, loss of daylight) of neighbouring properties.

b) There is adequate space for storage of waste and the means for its removal (where appropriate, turning areas for refuse vehicles). This includes provision for the general management of recyclable materials. Space will also be required for necessary servicing areas, ancillary structures and landscaping.

c) A means of landscaping that contributes to crime prevention; a permeable and legible network of routes and spaces, including “Green Infrastructure” to create a public realm that is attractive, overlooked and safe is included.

d) Considerate design solutions for the spaces between and around buildings are shown. This should respect the character of the surroundings; a well-designed scheme in terms of private, semi-private and public open space, to include, where appropriate, the provision of public art.

e) Arrangements are in place for the future maintenance of any public areas.23

f) Dwellings are designed to allow residents to live comfortably and conveniently with sufficient internal space. The guidelines for minimum internal floor areas are: 1 bedroom/2 person 51m2; 2 bedroom/3 person 66m2; 2 bedroom/ 4 person 77m2; 3 bedroom/5 person 93m2; 4 bedroom/6 person 106m2

g) Appropriate levels of private external space are included, especially for larger homes designed for family use (dwellings with two or more bedrooms). In respect of proposed family dwellings the Council would expect to see the provision of private garden space (normally at the rear), of at least 10 metres in length.

There was no consideration taken for the County Park users that will also be overlooked by this overbearing property that has large balconies on prominent elevations. The East Hill and the setting of the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ are popular picnicking area. The public footpath is adjacent to the new property and is close to the new property’s boundary.

Paragraph 5.5.17: There is no explanation given on why the two separate reporting officers reached different conclusions on the degree of overlooking. The two proposals were exactly the same in every way, and would have caused the same degree of overlooking; not only to the existing properties within the caravan park but to the adjacent Country Park. It is not explained why, if the two officers were following the same policies and guidelines, that they came to different conclusions. This should have been explored in more detail as the reporting officer for HS/FA/12/00952 appears to not have misunderstood the actual proposal. Mrs Collins makes no reference to the overlooking that would have occurred from the large balconies and fact that that the new property was significantly higher than the bungalow it replaced.

Paragraph 5.5.18: It is agreed that this was a good reason for refusal.

Paragraph 5.5.19: In the previous paragraph the author of the delegated report, Mrs Bishop, based her opinion on whether the proposal would create an adverse impact on the landscape and on ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ on local policies and government guidelines; she quoted the policy numbers and used written text from the policies quoted to expand on her concerns. Mrs Collins bases her decision on personal opinion. She does not expand on why she thinks that the proposal is not significantly larger than the original building. The proposed building was two storeys and not one storey and was declared as being 5.6 metres high, compared to the bungalow’s height of 4.4 metres. It is falsely stated that the proposed property is 8 x 9 metres ( the actual size of the building on the approved plans is 9 x 10 metres) but there are no dimensions included in the officer’s report that state how big the original bungalow was so that a comparison could be made. There are no drawings submitted that show the original bungalow.

Mrs Collins states that the contemporary building with rendered walls and bi-fold doors would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area; the existing properties are brick built with tiled roofs. Mrs Collins made comments about the tree-lined bank to the rear of the property and the dense hedging that surrounded the property (as mentioned in the ‘Heritage Statement’ and takes heed of the recommendations in the report that additional screening be added in relation to the existing footpaths). Mrs Collins uses the previously approved scheme HS/FA/10/00492 as a reason for passing the application. Mrs Collins makes no reference to a written statement made by Mrs Guilliard that the approved scheme could not be implemented as the condition of the bungalow had deteriorated significantly since the approval was granted; the permission was granted on 5 October 2010. This is a significant omission, made by the case officer, which had a material bearing on how the application was determined.

The reasons given for approval do not conform to local policies; in fact they are in stark contrast to the words within the policies, especially concerning proposed development that is within an ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’, where the recommendations are that any replacement buildings are small scale and built with locally sourced materials. Mrs Collins seems to think that a building that has an urban character fits in well in a countryside location and complements the existing buildings that are traditional in design. Mrs Collins makes reference to the dense vegetation and tree lined bank, but the presence of this screening is later denied by the Guilliards, and endorsed by Mrs Bahcheli.

Paragraph 5.5.20: The applicants were asked during the pre-application meeting to address the reasons for refusal one by one and to provide evidence. This evidence was not received within the application pack that was submitted three months after the application was registered. Mrs Collins was still asking for this evidence after the consultation period had ended.

On 23 January 2013 the applicants, were requested by the case officer, to supply further information in the form of a business case, as the property looked more like a house than holiday accommodation; drawings that showed the existing adjacent property on the drawings so that the impact could be compared; and to demonstrate how the proposed building would not be prominent from the Country Park as it had been stated that the proposed building would be bordered by the surrounding topography.

24

Letter from Elke Collins, Assistant Planner, Development Control to John Waterhouse, Elevations Designs Limited, dated 23 January 2013.

The recent planning refusal HS/FA/12/00471 has not been addressed and it has not been shown how the current proposal has overcome the previous reasons for refusal. These should be detailed one by one in detail.

Please submit the outstanding information by 31 January 2013.

This requested information was not submitted and the case officer approved the application without the requested documentation being received.

Paragraph 5.5.21: The planning history of a site is a material consideration when determining a planning application but it cannot be used as an argument in passing an application if it is incapable of implementation. If an approval has expired, or a subsequent approval has been implemented then the previous approval cannot be used as an argument to approve subsequent planning applications. Each application has to be judged on its own merits. As stated in the previous paragraph, the previous approval, by the developers own admission, was incapable of implementation. The fact that there was a previous approval on the same site is only a material consideration if the approval is still capable of implementation, and the applicant has the option of falling back on that approval should the subsequent approval fail. There had been material changes since the previous permission was granted which had a bearing on whether or not it was considered submissible as evidence. These material changes should have been noted in the officer’s delegated report. Subsequent evidence has come to light that the original wood built building had substantial changes made to it without valid planning permission. The structure of the building has to be questioned as incorrect procedures were followed when the application was determined, and building control were not consulted on whether the building was structurally sound, or whether the existing foundations needed reinforcement as the original bungalow was to all sense and purposes a brick clad shed.

Jane S wrote ‘Should ESCC Archaeologist be consulted? Additions of 1st floor may require re-enforcement of existing footings/excavations. Site is adjacent to Iron Age Hill Fort’

Paragraph 5.5.22: It has not been fully explained on how the applicants were able to take a refused planning application, with the same drawing that had been refused, and put it back on the table for reconsideration. When an application is refused the options open to the developer is to appeal against the decision or to resubmit a new proposal that addresses the previous reasons for refusal. This did not happen and the applicants were invited to resubmit the same proposal, with refused drawings, with a view to passing it. Why was drawing number: 11.396/1A not marked as ‘refused’ which is normal practice when an application is refused. All of the relevant paperwork that relates to the refused application should be marked ‘refused’ and date stamped.

Paragraph 5.5.23: It is not evident which planning application Mrs Bahcheli is referring to as she does not give a planning number and refers to the author of the delegated report as being male. The case officer for HS/FA/12/00471 was Mrs R Bishop and the case officer for HS/FA/12/00952 was Mrs Elke Collins. It would appear as if Mrs Bahcheli is complimenting Mrs Bishop on her comprehensive report into the effect the proposal would have on the landscape, which is in stark contrast to Mrs Collin’s report that did not seem to address the effect the proposal would have on landscape and on the AONB at all.

Paragraph 5.5.25: It is not stipulated in the report whether Mrs Bahcheli thinks that the weight given to the submitted evidence concerning tourism was an error, and the evidence discounted, or that weight should have been given to the evidence even though it was irrelevant to the specific application. The letter of support written by Kevin Boorman was not specific to the application and pre-dated the consultation period; the information from Tourism Board was about acceptable levels of accommodation size and did not refer to an assessment of the site that had led them to losing a star rating. There is no mention to a star being lost or to the bungalow being not up to the required standards. The applicants also provided a brochure from Visit England, Self-Catering – Quality Standard on Grounds, Gardens, Roadways and Car Parking. The brochure is not specific to Rocklands and lists acceptable standards for each star rating.

The brochure contains various sections that would be taken into consideration with star rating, which include cleanliness, quality of interior fixtures and fittings, management efficiency, welcome on arrival, guest and tourist information, public areas, flooring… The bungalow was structurally sound and according to the owners had been in constant use and was a favourite place for their guests who returned year after year. The exterior might have been a bit jaded but nothing that a lick of paint would not have cured.

There is nothing in the brochure, produced as evidence by the applicants and their agent that would suggest that they had lost a star rating because the bungalow was considered to be below the required standard.

25

The evidence used as a lever in the passing of planning application: HS/FA/12/0952 was misleading and not specific to the application that was being determined.

Paragraph 5.5.26: It is agreed that this is the correct view.

Paragraph 5.5.27: Mrs Bahcheli acknowledges the significance of the ‘Heritage Statement’ and notes that it was a key difference between the two proposals. It is our belief that the contents of the ‘Heritage Statement’ swayed third party consultees in their decision not to oppose the proposal. Archaeology at East Sussex County Council specifically mentions the report and its contents. The ‘Heritage Statement’ was based upon false and misleading information and therefore, through no fault of the author, very flawed. In addition the ‘Heritage Statement’ made a list of recommendations that were not followed up on by Hastings Borough Council.

Paragraphs 5.5.28: and 5.5.29: highlight the deficiencies in the delegated report compiled by Mrs Collins. The effect on the landscape and on AONB was one of the main reasons that the previous identical scheme was refused. This is a serious omission which should have been addressed at the time. The applicants were asked to address the previous reasons for refusal one by one and to come up with supporting evidence. This was not supplied and the case officer determined the application without the necessary requested evidence. The developer’s agent compared the new proposal to existing buildings within the caravan site and stated that they were larger and more prominent than the proposal on the table. At no stage was the existing bungalow compared to either the new proposal or to the existing buildings within the caravan park.

Paragraph 5.5.30: We agree that the land stability issues should have been addressed at the time as there was mention of slumping to the rear and in the garden area of the proposed property. There was also evidence of land slippage in the vicinity and a fault line close to the caravan park boundary. There was enough evidence at the time to ask for a geotechnical survey to be performed. It is not known at this stage whether the subsequent land slippage in 2013 and 2014 could have been prevented had significant geotechnical surveys taken place prior to construction. Any geotechnical surveys on Rocklands Holiday Caravan Park are to be welcomed as the findings could prevent further significant slippage. It is not known at this stage what the actual cause of the landslips were as further geotechnical investigations, advised by Coffey Geotechnical Limited, have not been actioned. The planning department were aware of the land stability issues as it was submitted after the landslides in early 2014 had occurred. Comments regarding possible land stability issues were raised in the objectors’ letters, which were ignored by the case officer and the Development Control Manager.

26

Planning Drawings

Paragraph: 5.5.31: The measurements written in the officer’s delegated report for application HS/FA/12/00952 are incorrect. The delegated report states that the building has a footprint of 8*9 metres . This footprint is understated by 1 metre in both depth and width. The footprint of the building on the approved plans is actually 9.0*10.15 metres. It is hard to understand how Mrs Bahcheli believes that the measurements in the delegated report are correct. We assume that Mrs Bahcheli has failed to measure the approved plans correctly. This is further evidence that the approved plans are very difficult to read. Mrs Bahcheli has had access to the A3 plans and yet reads the wrong measurements from them. We ask again - what chance did consultees have of reading the dimensions of the scaled down .pdf plans which did not have a scale bar or dimensions?

Mrs Bahcheli has failed to spot this critical misrepresentation of the size of the building in the delegated officers report. The size of the building has been consistently understated throughout the application. Mrs Bahcheli seems to believe that this is not the case. This is a fundamental error which has fatally compromised the report.

The campaign group has had the approved plans checked by an experienced draughtsman who confirms our measurements as being correct.

Depth of Building 10.15 meters. Elevation from rear of building, and elevations from front of building (facing the sea).

Width of building is 9.0 metres – elevation from East Hill

Paragraph 5.5.32: Mrs Bahcheli states that the footprint of the new proposal is 8 x 9 metres or 72 square metres and compares it to the existing bungalow as being 67 square metres. The actual building size was 94.2 square metres. The depth of the building is 10.15 NOT 9.0 metres – elevation from the rear of the building. The width of the building is 9.0 metres and NOT 8.0 metres – elevations from the East Hill.

27

The actual dimensions of the bungalow’s elevations are not mentioned. It is stated that the case officer could have looked at previously approved plans to see the actual dimensions. The actual measurements of the existing bungalow should have been included with the application so that a comparison could be made. Mrs Bahcheli states previously that the case officer should not have to check the measurements of the building. In this paragraph she states that the officer should look at previous plans for the actual measurements for comparison.

Paragraph 5.5.33: The size of the proposed footprint is NOT correct. As stated above the approved footprint is 9*10.15 metres as compared to the 8*9 meters stated in the delegated report and elsewhere in the application. Mrs Bahcheli has failed to recognise this fundamental error and continues understate the size of the approved building.

Sufficient documentation should have been provided within the planning application pack. Mrs Collins asked for drawings that related to the existing bungalow, and this was not received. Instead comparisons were made with a previous scheme. This also did not show actual dimensions it only showed that the new proposal was slightly larger than the previous scheme in relationship to the existing property ‘Rocklands House’. The previous scheme was for a second floor extension. The ground floor elevations for the bungalow should have been the same; it was on the second floor elevations that were different (in theory, as the actual plans for the extension involved considerable changes to the whole property). It was believed at the time that the new property would be on the same footprint as the existing property this has proved to be false as the new property is considerably larger and is closer to ‘Rocklands House’. The orientation of the building has changed and is now several degrees closer to the Country Park boundary. The footprint of the existing bungalow was overstated.

Condition 5 – Screening

Paragraph 5.5.34: The additional screening condition was imposed on the north-east corner of the property and to the existing hedgerow that separated the two properties. The additional tree on the north-east corner was at that time within the redline area of the site. The increased hedge screening proposal was within the redline area of the site. This was only changed in a subsequent drawing: 11.393/03B where a disabled access was proposed and the hedge screening proposal moved to an adjacent site which was out of the redline area. This drawing should not have been accepted and the condition should not have been discharged using false evidence. The disabled access was not a proposal that had been approved. The original drawing 11.396/1A has been marked ‘superseded’ and the new drawing has been marked as ‘approved’. This drawing and a previously submitted drawing 11.396/03 contained additional ‘amendments’ and ‘revisions’ that required planning permission. These drawings were submitted in October 2013 and were dated March 2013. It is evident from these submitted drawings that the ‘as built’ building was what was intended all along. This is deception.

Mrs Bahcheli refers to a ‘Grampian condition’ which is a planning condition attached to a decision notice that prevents the start of development until off-site works have been completed on land not controlled by the applicant. Most of the intended screening lies within the redline area of the site, the screening to the hedgerow that separates the two properties is within the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ where a monument consent is required from ‘English Heritage’. This was not applied for and the screening was significantly reduced instead of increased. The planning department assumed that this increase was achievable, the Council’s tree specialist said that any tree planting scheme would be compromised by the elements that prevail on the East Hill. Small samples of species were proposed, which Mr Wilkins said would take many, many years to reach a size that would sufficiently screen the building, if they took at all.

Paragraph 5.5.35: The ‘Heritage Statement’ concluded that there would be a slight adverse effect on the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ and a condition was attached to the planning approval to cover the areas that were considered deficient. The author’s conclusion was based on false dimensions and the existing tree screening remaining on site. The condition stipulated increased tree screening. There was nothing on the plans that suggested that the existing trees and hedgerows would be removed.

Paragraph 5.5.36: There is nothing within the wording of Condition 5 that suggests that the screening was only to the north-east of the new property. The only indication of this additional screening is on the revised drawing: 11.396/03B submitted in January 2014, three months after the existing screening had been removed.

‘Condition 5: No development shall take place until a plan to increase the screening effect of the hedges and trees that currently border the lawns adjacent to the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.’

The revised drawing showed an addition tree on the north-east corner of the new building. This proposed screening was not imposed as the existing tree was removed to accommodate an unauthorised access from the car parking area to the new building. Existing trees were also removed to accommodate the unauthorised disabled ramp. The existing

28

hedge screening was also partially removed for the access road. It has not been confirmed who the officer was that said that the screening only applied to the north-east corner.

Paragraph 5.5.37: The tree screening related to the garden area of the proposed property as well as additional screening on the north-east corner. Drawing number: 11/396/03B shows additional tree planting to the garden area marked in red. The disabled access was not part of the original plans and had not been authorised through the planning process.

Drawing: 11.396/03B

Paragraph 5.5.38: Mrs Bahcheli makes reference to the ‘Heritage Statement’ and the author’s conclusion that there was sufficient screening to the rear of the proposed property and to the south-west boundary and that they only areas considered by him to be deficient in screening were to the north-east. Mr James recommended that screening be increased to the garden area of the property. Mr James did not recommend increasing the screening on the south-west boundary as it was considered sufficient at the time. The additional screening was to be introduced to aid privacy to the residents and guests of the caravan park. There was a slight indication that the site would be viewed from the Country Park. Mr James suggested that the case officer liaised with the Country Park Management Team to ensure that the views from the Country Park were not compromised. This suggests that Mr James thought it appropriate for the management team to have input into any tree screening proposal.

A number of trees were removed from the site prior to construction on the site. The developers admit that work started on the site on 1 October 2013, three months prior to the conditions pursuant to development being discharged. The applicants provided photographic evidence that the new proposal would not be viewed from the Country Park, the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ or Ecclesbourne Glen. The ‘Heritage Statement’ refers to dense vegetative cover surrounding the site and Mrs Collins in her delegated officer’s report mentions the trees and hedgerow ‘There is a tree lined bank to the rear and mature dense hedges…’

Mrs Bahcheli states that there is a dead ash tree stump, and the cutting back of holly, and an area that has been replanted with holly, but is unable to tell whether any trees have been deliberately removed from the site. Presumably the ash tree was alive at some stage and a replanting scheme indicates that the holly has been planted to replace previous screening that has been removed. The applicants had already started a tree replanting scheme, planting some immature holly specimens, prior to application: HS/FA/14/00406 being determined – this screening was performed without the benefit of a monument licence from ‘English Heritage’ and according to the Council’s tree specialist was unlikely to survive the harsh climate on the East Hill.

Paragraph 5.5.39: We are not sure how efficient a tree survey would be in the circumstances as Mrs Bahcheli has already indicated that there is only a tree stump and some replacement holly species which by the Council’s own tree specialist’s admission would be unlikely to survive the elements that prevail on the East Hill. Additional screening was proposed in a form of a condition attached to the previous approval: HS/FA/12/00952 but this did not stop the

29

applicants from removing a significant number of trees from the site prior to construction. It was indicated that none of the existing trees were to be touched during the construction process. It has been stated over the previous months that enforcement action is difficult to take on breaches of conditions even with copious amounts of evidence. A tree survey and landscaping proposal is not appropriate in this case, and will not confirm that a replanting scheme will be actioned, or that the trees will be protected in the future. The trees that surrounded the site were not only removed to accommodate a large building, but were removed to afford the holiday let tenants a better view over the Country Park and to the sea. Mr Guilliard was reported cutting down more of the hedgerow after development work had been stopped. The building is 3 metres closer to the existing property ‘Rocklands House’ and a tree lined bank is reported by the case officer, the Development Control Manager and Archaeology South East; this tree lined bank is no longer there as an unauthorised retaining wall has been added and the bank scalped of all vegetation.

Paragraph 5.5.40: The garden area of the two storey holiday let is within the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’. The original development at the turn of the 19th Century must have cut into the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ as the plans shown on ‘English Heritage website shows that the scheduled area surrounds three sides of the monument. The rear to the property is not scheduled but is part of the Iron Age rampart. The additional hedge screening proposed to the lawn area would have encroached onto the monument. The ‘Heritage Statement’ only mentions tree screening to the north-east corner, which would not have required a license from ‘English Heritage’. Mr Chuter, Archaeology at East Sussex County Council, was correct that the tree screening proposal affected the ‘SAM’, but it not known why he subsequently thought that it did not.

Mrs Bahcheli is incorrect as Condition 5 related to the lawn area of the proposed property which is located within the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’.

‘Condition 5: No development shall take place until a plan to increase the screening effect of the hedges and trees that currently border the lawns adjacent to the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.’

The new building was built into the SAM on 3 sides! Approved plans show that the lawned area within the SAM was going to be built on. Only the false claim that the footprint remained the same made the archaeological unit draw this conclusion. The conclusion is based on false information.

5.6 Conclusion on HS/FA/12/00952

Paragraph 5.6.1: The aim of the pre-application consultation was to ensure that there was sufficient evidence to be able to address the previous reasons for the refusal of the identical planning application. The only suggestion taken on board was that a ‘Heritage Statement’ was submitted as this had not been submitted as part of the refused application. This was the only supporting evidence that was supplied with the application pack and the case officer was still asking for evidence a week before the application was determined. Some of the requested information was not submitted at all and an approval decision was made with vital evidence missing.

Paragraph 5.6.2: The Country Park Management Team was not consulted and neither were ‘Natural England’ who should have been contacted as the site is adjacent to a SSSI and SAC site.

Paragraph 5.6.3: The inconsistent responses made by ‘Friends of the Country Park’ and AONB do not seem to have caused the case officer any concern at all as she fails to mention that Mr Peak did not respond to the subsequent identical planning proposal and did not remark on why AONB appeared to change their stance between the two planning applications. Mr Bahcheli cannot second guess on whether ‘English Nature’ would have commented on the planning application had they been informed. ‘English Nature’ stated that as they had not been consulted on planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 they did not think it appropriate to comment on the ‘revised’ plans (00406). This, we think is understandable, as they would only have been commenting on the ‘material amendments’ and not the proposal as a whole. Any comments made about the whole proposal would have been disregarded by the case officer as being irrelevant, as it was only the ‘minor material amendments’ that would have been addressed. As the Development Control Manager has previously stated ‘All you are looking at is whether the design of the property can be changed – all of the other issues were considered in the previously approved scheme’.

The ‘Friends of the Country Park’ were not contacted directly. Mr Peak was no longer the chair of the ‘Friends’ and the letter was addressed to the householder, and not to the ‘Friends’. It has been explained why AONB changed their responses between the two planning applications. The reasons for their comments were based on the evidence that they had at the time, the conflicting evidence came from the applicants, which caused the problem not AONB.

Under the circumstances it would have been more appropriate to hold the objection letters in abeyance. The application was identical in every way. Alternatively, Mr Peak could have been consulted on the added evidence and

30

information provided, and whether he considered them significant to change his initial decision. If Mr Peak was unavailable for comments, then other members of the ‘Friends of the Country Park’ could have been informed of the proposal. A wider audience could have been consulted as the proposal affects the wider community as it is adjacent to and affects the Country Park. There were several pieces of additional evidence received after the close for comments and objections and it was not considered applicable or necessary to re-consult. New plans were submitted after the close of the consultation period, this alone should have made re-consultation necessary. These plans were used as evidence and were included in the decision notice as being the plans to which the development must conform.

Paragraph 5.6.4: We agree that this is a valid suggestion and one that we would like to be actioned.

Paragraph 5.6.5: A pre-consultation was instigated on 15 August 2012 between the Development Control Manager, the applicants Mr and Mrs Guilliard and their agent, John Waterhouse, a month after the previous identical application was refused on 19 July 2012. Additional evidence was requested in list form, and the application was not put onto the table for consideration until 5 December 2012. The case officer was aware of the deficiency in the evidence provided but registered the application anyway, thereby starting the clock. She was still requesting information that would enable her to make an informed decision a month before the application was determined and some of this was not obtained until a week before the application was decided. Some of the requested documentation was not received, or was not what was required, in order to make an informed decision. The case officer seemed pressured into making a decision as time was running out. Mrs Bahcheli states that she does not believe that there was a deliberate attempt to deceive, the evidence suggests otherwise.

Paragraph 5.6.6: The footprint of the existing building is only shown in dotted outline and indicates that the replacement building is entirely within the footprint of the bungalow. It has been stated previously that the new proposal is significantly bigger than the building it replaced. The footprint of the new building is understated. This is deception.

Paragraph 5.6.7: Mrs Bahcheli states that the Council would have been justified in seeking a higher level of information. This contradicts an earlier statement that the case officer felt that she had enough information to come to an informed decision. Mrs Bahcheli quotes in Paragraph 5.4.14 ‘that the council can accept a reduced level of information if it considers it has sufficient information to properly assess and control the proposal’. Mrs Bahcheli justifies accepting incorrect plans by saying that there were objections to the previous proposal. There is nothing in the objection letters that state that the reasons for objecting were because of inaccurate plans.

Paragraph 5.6.8: There seems to be some confusion as to whether conservation restraints are applicable on this site which has led to confusion during the determination process. The application is not in the Old Town Conservation area but is adjacent to it, which means that policy C1 is applicable. The application site is also with an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which is a nationally recognised conservation area. Mr Crawford actually told the planning committee members that Policy C1 was not applicable which led the members to believe that other related policies were not applicable. Again this is a serious omission. The land stability issues were not contemplated at all even though there is a history of instability on the site and within the surrounding area.

Paragraph 5.6.9: Mrs Bahcheli again refers to the case officer as being a male. There were no objections to HS/FA/12/00952 as at the time no one was aware of the application. The public views were expressed during the consultation period for HS/FA/14/00406 and have no bearing on 00952. Much reliance is made to the individual case officer’s judgement, which seems to override the previous officer’s views and comments. Who is to say which one is correct?

Paragraph 5.6.11: It is stated in this paragraph that planning application HS/FA/12/00952 was discussed at a higher level and it had been concluded that the previous refusal had been unjustified. It is not stated in this report who had taken it upon their self to declare HS/FA/12/00471 unlawful. The refusal decision has not been quashed by the Council. The application was not subsequently approved at appeal and a Judicial Review has not taken place. The original refusal decision still stands unless quashed in a Court of Law. We can see no justification in this unlawful decision being made at a higher level and there is nothing within this report that suggests that incorrect procedures were followed. In fact Mrs Bahcheli praises Mrs Bishop in her diligence and report writing. The only errors pointed out have been in application: HS/FA/12/00952 and the submitted evidence. The fault lies with Mrs Collins in not addressing the previous reasons for refusal one by one as highlighted in the pre-application discussion.

The Senior Officer, Mr Sam Batchelor, who signed off the delegated report, must hold some responsibility as he did not check to see whether the report was correct. It is our opinion that HS/FA/12/00471 should have been decided by the planning committee as there were two letters of objection and one letter that requested further information in order to be able to make an informed decision. Other outside bodies were not consulted so were therefore, denied the chance to comment. The officer, by using their delegated powers to refuse the application, denied the objectors the chance to be heard. The objections were not held in abeyance and the subsequent planning application was passed by delegated powers. If it is now considered that the decision for HS/FA/12/00471 was unjustified, then the only

31

alternative would have been an ‘approval decision’ which would have put the ultimate decision into the planning committee’s hands. This paragraph does not make sense as the deficiencies seem to lie with HS/FA/12/00952 and not HS/FA/12/00471. We request to see the legal opinion on the decision made to declare application: HS/FA/12/00471 unlawful.

Paragraphs 5.6.12: and 5.6.13: We agree with the recommendations, but putting an application back on the table that has previously been refused is not recommended within government guidelines. The accepted practice is to ‘revise’ the plans so that the reasons for refusal are addressed. This did not happen as the submitted evidence did not address all of the previous reasons for refusal, and was based on the individual officer’s interpretation, which was not appropriate in this instance. Planning application: HS/FA/12/00471 should have been a material consideration when assessing the subsequent planning application.

6 Planning application made under reference HS/FA/14/00406

We fear that the critique of this application has been done to justify a further ‘retrospective’ planning application. Mrs Bahcheli is happy to state that the refusal of planning application: HS/FA/12/00471 was unjustified and has stated that HS/FA/14/00406 is deficient. Mrs Bahcheli is not prepared to commit the same sort of criticism to planning application HS/FA/12/00952 which leads us to conclude that Mrs Bahcheli is only justifying the approval decision. It was our understanding that Mrs Bahcheli’s scope and remit was to look at planning procedures and that is was not within her remit to challenge the final decision.

Paragraph 6.1.1: The planning application number is incorrect; development commenced on the site on 1 October 2013 and the conditions attached to planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 (HS/CD/13/00792) were not discharged until 21 January 2014 your report incorrectly states that the conditions were discharged late October 2014, this is an important factual error that could have serious implecations. It is stated that a site visit was performed, but there is no reference within the report that states that the site had been cleared of all vegetation and the building work commenced. If enforcement action had been taken at this time then there would not be the problem we have now of an unauthorised building that cannot successfully be screened. The refusal by the planning department to measure the building has led to the suggestion of a further ‘retrospective’ planning application. The Campaigners asked for a full measurement survey to be undertaken prior to the application being determined. The Council responded by forcing the application to committee before the actual measurements had been determined. If the Council had listened to reason then the measurements would have been correct, and there would have been no need for a further ‘retrospective’ application. It has only been considered necessary for the application to be put back on the table for the fourth time because the actual measurements have been confirmed. Even though the height is 59 cm higher than the approved plans, the building size has increased significantly, and the footprint and the orientation of the building changed beyond recognition, it is looked upon as an ideal opportunity to revisit the application with the view to approve, subject to further evidence that will address the land stability and screening issues.

Paragraph 6.1.2: Local Residents reported the removal of trees prior to construction on the site but were told that the conditions attached to the planning approval only related to the north-east corner of the building. It was stated that the application site was not within a conservation area so the trees were not protected. Again the local residents were fobbed off with excuses without checking the actual facts.

Paragraph 6.1.3: The whole process has been a struggle with Hastings Borough Council as local residents are not listened to in any respect. After months of talks and negotiations we are still no nearer to a satisfactory conclusion. It should not have been left to the local residents to inform the Council of breaches of conditions. The case officer dealing with the discharge of conditions application visited the site and did not report that construction had already started prior to the ‘Conditions pursuant to Development’ being discharged. The plans submitted with the application showed significant changes to the original proposal that had not gone through the planning process. The submitted evidence in relation to the discharge of conditions application was not a tree planting proposal it was a drawing with a couple of lollypop trees. There were no suggestions of what type of species was to be used; there were no size specifications and no method statement in light of the fact that the site was within an ‘Archaeological Notification Area’.

Paragraph 6.1.4: Planning application HS/FA/14/00406 was flawed from its first submission. Incorrect drawings were submitted which did not show all of the actual changes. The balcony extension on the south-west elevation was not included so that it was not evident that the ‘Iron Age Hill Fort’ had been breached. The application was for a ‘retrospective’ proposal so therefore the drawing should have shown the ‘as built’ building and should not have been submitted in another attempt to deceive. There were many elements of the application that could not have been considered as being ‘minor material amendments’, but the changes were understated, or ignored, so that the application could be approved without having to go through the full procedure and having to supply the additional evidence that would have been required to satisfy a standalone planning application for ‘full planning permission’. The wrong section of the Town and Country Planning Act was used and the implementation period extended for a further three years.

32

The refusal decision did not seem to address all of the reasons outlined in the objector’s letter and no regard was given to our barrister’s opinion, which stated that the application was flawed. The comments made by AONB were ignored in the decision making process, and the reasons for refusal, although valid, did not address all of the concerns raised, or the actual flaws within submitted documentation. We feel that the reasons for refusal were not strong enough, and the errors in procedure and in the submitted documentation could have given the applicants a reason to appeal against the decision. The applicants did not appeal as it was later revealed that the buildings size, footprint and orientation could not be classed as a ‘minor material amendment’, which is fortunate for the Council as their incorrect procedures and lack of care, could have led to costs being awarded against them.

Paragraph 6.1.5: The list of main issues is incomplete and does not consider the following:

Planning application HS/FA/14/00406 was determined under section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and was given a three year implementation period, which is ridiculous under the circumstances as it was a retrospective planning application. The decision date should have been the date of the original approval 13 February 2013 as the application had been submitted as a ‘Variation to a Condition’ of an already approved plan and not as a ‘stand-alone planning application’. The application should have been decided under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The wrong date of decision has been included as it should tie in with the original approval HS/FA/12/00952 and be 13 February 2013.

The committee report has not been drafted properly, and misses the more fundamental point that they have referred to the wrong Section of the Act. A ‘Variation of a Condition’ is applied for under section 73 of the Town and Country Act 1990 and not 91 of the Act as referred to in the officer’s final report. (As a Retrospective Planning Application it should have been determined under section 73A of the Act).

There are amendments on the plan that are outside of the redline area on the site plan but there is no text on the plan explaining that these additional amendments are to be ignored.

For reasons stated previously this application cannot be treated as a ‘minor material amendment’. Words ‘like not significantly larger’, ‘minimal in size’ and ‘the increase in size is minor’ have been used to try and tame down the actual bulk and size of the proposed amendments.

It is stated on the committee report that the alterations are not clearly visible from the adjacent open space; this is misrepresentation as the building is most certainly visible, and blocks what was once a beautiful and uninterrupted view.

The case officer/development control manager seems to have confused two separate types of planning application and has referred to two separate sections of the 1990 Act in determining this application HS/FA/14/00406. The case officer/development control manager has made reference to policies T7, L2, L3, DG1, DG3, C1, C6 in the adopted Hastings Local Plan 2004; policies DM1, DM3, DM4, HN1, HN4 of the Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version; FA5, EN1 and EN7 of the Hastings Planning Strategy Proposed Submission Version; Sections 7, 11 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, but he has not said why these policies were considered during the decision making exercise, or why they were discounted when forming their final decision.

The planning committee members were told during the meeting that the application was not in a Conservation Area and that all references to C1 should be deleted. This is incorrect as the site of the application is adjacent to the ‘Old Town Conservation Area’. One of the councillors asked that as Policy C1 was to be removed was policy T7 still applicable and was told, after enquiring what the Policy was, that it was not applicable. T7 relates to Developments within Caravan Sites so we are unsure as to why it was not considered applicable. It was stated that C1 was the correct in this case and that it would be added to the minutes. Mr Crawford also stipulated that the date of decision was incorrect on two cases:

It should be adjusted to 13 February 2013 and not 13 February 2014

It should be the date of the original decision HS/FA/12/00952 and not 18 June 2014

Mr Crawford stated that the application was considered to be an application for ‘minor material amendments’ and that there are no written guidelines on what a ‘minor material amendment’ was and that it was left to the discretion of the Local Planning Authority. It was stated that what is minor on one application might not be minor on another. This fact was confirmed by the Planning Solicitor, Kirsty Cameron. There are written guidelines and most LPAs have their own written guidelines so that it can be clear to all what is acceptable

33

and what is not. Hastings Borough Council has no written guidelines on ‘minor material amendments’, the only stipulation being that there must be a pre-application discussion prior to the application being submitted. This did not happen in this case.

Paragraph 6.1.6: This paragraph has been written as though the Standen Associates Report had not been received. In previous paragraphs, although not mentioned by name, the report’s finds are recorded. At the time that this report was published it had been confirmed that the ‘as built’ building was higher by 59 cm and was closer to the existing property, ‘Rocklands House’. The orientation of the building has also changed so that it is closer to the south-west boundary. It is stated that a deadline for submission of a further retrospective planning application has been imposed; this contradicts the earlier statement that the applicants will submit the application once the measured survey has been received. The Standen Report was released to the Campaign Group on 3 October and was discussed during our meeting with Councillor Birch and Mr Hubbard on 8 October 2014. Mrs Bahcheli was obviously aware of the report’s findings when her report was compiled but has dumbed down their significance. This is a significant omission as the Standen report confirms the Group’s suspicions, which were ignored at the time. Mrs Bahcheli’s report is weighted against the objectors; the report should be reviewed stating ‘ in light of the evidence now confirmed, that the ‘Campaigners’ were right to push for a measurement survey to be performed’.

We are concerned that this re-measurement process has given the Council the chance to request a further ‘retrospective’ planning application in order to regularise the now unauthorised building. The Standen report only confirms what the Campaigners have always suspected, but this has given the Council the chance to revisit the application with the view to approve, subject to further submitted evidence and by adding suitably worded conditions. This seems to be highly unconventional, if not illegal, and we shall be seeking legal advice on the validity of this procedure. This could have been avoided if the Council had been prepared to listen to the public and agreed to a re-measurement survey instead of trivialising their fears and making fun of their concerns.

6.2 Advertising the Application

Paragraph 6.2.3: A revised plan, 11.396/06A was submitted after the notification letters had been posted. The two properties consulted were to the ex-Chairman of ‘Friends of the Country Park’ and ‘Rocklands Cottage’ which is in the ownership of the applicants. Letters were sent out to the 25 households that had objected to the proposal between the date the original notification letters were posted, and the date the revised plans were received. The ‘revised’ plan was not available for viewing online until the day that the officer’s committee report was posted. The ‘revised’ plan showed a balcony extension to the south-west corner; previous ‘amendments’ that were included on the previous plan were still evident, but were not now marked in red as ‘amendments’. These ‘additional’ amendment’ appeared to be outside of the redline area of the site – no additional details were given on the exact positions or whether they were to serve the new property. The flawed drawings were reported to the Council from the Campaign Group, the planning officers did not notice the errors and omissions on the original plans. The Council had been exposed to close public scrutiny, but was still incapable of vetting plans properly.

Paragraph 6.2.4: The petition was received after the officer’s delegated report had been compiled and had been posted online. The deadline for comments and objections was 13 June 2014; the officer’s report was posted on 10 June 2014. The officer’s committee report was written prior to all objections being received. Not all of the relevant objection received would have been noted or addressed in the officer’s report. This is pre-determination as some relevant information could have been received from an objector or third party representative that could have swayed the officer’s final decision.

Paragraph 6.2.6: The revised plans were still incorrect but again were accepted by planning. A further consultation period should have been given but instead the application was submitted for approval before the consultation period had officially ended. It is normal for an application to be determined between five to eight weeks and not after two weeks. Again the application was pre-determined as there was no intention of giving any regard to the general public’s concerns.

Paragraph 6.2.7: Planning application HS/FA/14/00406 was submitted for consideration after there had been a public outcry on the fact that the building had been built without the benefit of planning permission. The general public brought the unauthorised building to the Council’s attention and a ‘Press Release’ confirmed that the building had not been built to the approved plans. The response to the application was not due to the Council following correct procedures concerning consultation, it was due to the fact that the general public was aware that this ‘retrospective’ planning application was to be submitted and objected accordingly.

Other Authority Consultees

Paragraph 6.2.8: The objectors to the application noted in their letters that insufficient evidence had been supplied by the applicants on how foul sewerage and waste water was to be disposed of, to which the applicants had stated ‘unknown’. There were no details given on how surface water was to be disposed of, just that it was to be connected

34

to a sustainable system. Site stability concerns were raised as the site had a history of subsidence and there was a history of instability within the vicinity. There were also concerns that the Fire Brigade and other authorities should have been consulted. Again these concerns were ignored in an effort to get the application approved quickly.

Paragraph 6.2.9: Drawings submitted with the ‘retrospective’ planning application showed additional works to the sewerage and land drainage system on the site. There were no written details provided with the application that showed what these proposals entailed, or where they were to be located. Objection letters that specifically asked for clarification were ignored by the case officer in their committee report. The planning committee members were told to ignore these ‘amendments’ on the plans, and it was stated that they could be future proposals that were outside of this ‘revised’ application. The applicants did not give details in their application form on how the sewerage was to be disposed of and marked the form unknown. The case officer did not ask for clarification, and did not contact the Water Board for advice or comment. Southern Water was not contacted concerning HS/FA/12/00952. Building Control was not contacted even though the previous building was to be demolished. No structural surveys were undertaken on the unauthorised building prior to the ‘retrospective’ planning application being accepted. The building had been constructed in the majority without planning permission; a structural survey should have been requested.

There was no written survey into the previous bungalow that was located adjacent to a conservation area to see whether it was worth preserving.

‘POLICY C2Demolition in a Conservation AreaPlanning permission for development that would follow the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area will not be granted unless:-EITHER:(a) the existing building does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area or itssetting;OR:(b) it is impracticable to retain the existing building in its present authorised use, or to reinstate it to a suitable previous or alternative use; and(c) no other suitable and economically viable use can be found for it.’

The building to be demolished was adjacent to a conservation area and the only division between the site and the conservation area was an ‘Important Hedgerow’ which has now been removed. The one storey bungalow was built sometime in the 1920s, and was in keeping with the existing three storey house that was adjacent to the property. There was no reason given for the need to demolish the existing bungalow, other than it did not meet the requirements for a holiday accommodation, but only a year previously it was suggested that the accommodation was a house and not a holiday let, and there were plans to add another storey to the property rather than demolish it completely. The existing building did preserve the character of the conservation area and its settings, as its appearance was unobtrusive, and blended in with the surrounding area, and was set well within the landscape. It was stated in the applicant’s additional information statement that the bungalow was in regular use and was popular with their guests as it had its own secluded garden.

Paragraph 6.2.10: It seems from this paragraph that Mrs Bahcheli is stating that what has gone on before is unimportant and can be resolved by a further ‘retrospective’ planning application. By her own admission relevant third party representative should have been contacted at the time and certain policies should have been adhered to. It is stated that further information could have been requested, but in her opinion there was enough evidence for the case officer to have come to an informed decision.

Southern Water were not contacted in respect of foul sewerage and grey water disposal Southern Water were not contact in respect of land drainage and surface water disposal A detailed tree survey was not undertaken The land stability issues were not addressed Building Control was not contacted… Details were not submitted to the planning authority about the retaining structure

Paragraph 6.2.11: Mrs Bahcheli is putting the onus on third party consultees visiting the site to see the actual proposal rather than rely on flawed drawings. The site is not accessible to the general public and cannot be viewed in its entirety from the adjacent land. It was only discovered that there was a retaining structure to the rear of the property when the Standen Report was published. The only reference previously to a retaining structure was made by the tree specialist, Clive Mayhew, in his replanting scheme report. The submitted drawings were flawed which led to misunderstanding from consultees such as Highways who thought that car parking facilities were to be provided. A bigger complaint is against factually incorrect statements in the ‘Heritage Statement’ submitted with HS/FA/12/00952 as it was the conclusions in the report that swayed third party representatives when commenting on the proposal. The drawings submitted with the application should be accurate and any consultees should be able to assess the proposal

35

without a site visit. Not all case officers visit the site, and it is unusual for the planning committee members to visit the site prior to a planning committee meeting. Most consultees rely on desk studies to form their opinions and cannot be expect to attend a site visit to confirm whether the submitted evidence is correct. The consultees are not locally based.

Paragraph 6.2.12: Not even the Council was aware that the proposal had been built closer to the existing property or that the orientation of the building had changed from the approved plans. This was only discovered after the Standen report had been received. The Development Control Manager could not tell from the submitted plans that the actual build was 59 cm higher than the approved plans as he quoted 5 cm or 2 inches. ‘English Heritage’ was not aware that the building had encroached on the ‘Iron Age’ rampart, and on part of the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’, until the Standen report had been released.

This building is unique in that it has been built without the benefit of valid planning permission it is not appropriate to say that flawed drawings are inconsequential as the building is in situ and can be viewed by consultees, rather than relying on submitted evidence. Submitted drawings should be accurate and contain enough information for all concerned to come to an informed opinion or decision. In the majority of cases the proposals are paper based there is not a building ‘in situ’ to compare them with.

6.3 The Submitted Documents

Paragraph 6.3.1: There were additional amendments marked on the plans that were not explained in detailed notes and there was no ‘Design and Access Statement’.

Drawing 11.396/06 dated May 2014 – Amendments marked in red wiggly lines

Existing FW Flow connected to twin pumping system (4300L) with 24hr backup system connected to existing sewer

Proposed dedicated parking space Rainwater harvesting system overflow to be connected to mains sewerage system as land deemed unsuitable

for soakaways – wording revised from connection to rainwater waste system to mains sewerage system Proposed paved area serving route from dedicated parking space to building entrance to be laid to a maximum

gradient no greater than 1:12 and individual flights no longer than 5m for gradients. All routes to have an unobstructed width of at least 900mm. Finished surface to be firm and even and finished in a non-slip material

Proposed area provided for emergency service vehicle - not included on 11.396/03 or 03B South West Elevation French Doors changed to Windows; Windows Overlooking Hastings Country Park

Removed North West Elevation New Windows Installed to Overlook Rocklands Park

Paragraph 6.3.2: Mrs Bahcheli recognises the fact that the drawings were flawed and that they did not represent the ‘as built’ building and did not clearly mark the changes that differed from the approved plans. She is applauding the Council for commissioning a detailed measured survey, so that any questions could be answered. It is obvious that the Council had not been able to come to an informed decision without the necessary clarification so therefore, why should unqualified objectors and consultees be able to interpret the flawed drawings? There were no actual measurements on any of the submitted drawings; the proposal had to be measured with a scale rule. The Development Control Manager presented the height of the building as being 5 cm higher than the approved plans when he should have stated 55 cm, which was thought at the time – the building is in fact higher still. The text within Mrs Bahcheli’s report is inconsistent as she deviates from stating that the measurement details are awaited to the details of the measurements being confirmed – there is no actual reference to the author of the report and the report is not listed within her list of documents referred to in the making of the report.

Paragraph 6.3.3: This is true. The plans between the approved application, and the revised application still showed an indication of tree and hedge cover on the site when they had all been removed prior to development. The plan submitted to discharge the conditions was inadequate and only showed an indication of tree replanting; there were no actual details of the trees that were proposed in the form of species, height, etc. No additional information was required and the case officer did not advise the applicants to contact ‘English Heritage’ as the replanting scheme was proposed within the site of the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’. A site visit was performed but the case officer did not note the works commencing or that the tree screening could no longer be achievable.

Paragraph 6.3.4: Objectors raised concerns over the additional amendments submitted with the plans as it is not what is on the description that matters it is what is on the approved plans. It was stated by the Planning Solicitor, Kirsty Cameron that it was legitimate to include them on the plans as they could be subsequent proposals. The planning committee members were told to ignore the amendments. It is our concern that the intention was to pass the amendments that were outside of the redline area without going through the correct planning procedure.

36

Paragraph 6.3.5: Once again the Council is relying on ‘suitably worded conditions’ being attached to planning approvals. These conditions cannot be monitored, so there will be no control on whether the property becomes residential, and would be difficult to enforce if the condition is breached. The apartments are advertised as having long term stay facilities. The applicants have provided conflicting information on the ‘Use’ of the property as they have stated that the property had been residential since 1900 and also that it had been a holiday let for the past 15 years. A planning application was refused where the applicants tried to get the ‘Use’ changed by giving false information.

HS/FA/11/00043 – Removal of Condition 2 of Planning Permission; HS/FA/10/00492Refused 16 March 2011

The officer’s delegated report stated:

‘The agent claims that the building is not for holiday use and is instead an independent unit of accommodation and has been since the beginning of the 1900s however no evidence is submitted to support this claim. Furthermore at the time of determining the original application the agent was asked to confirm the use of the building and responded that the building was a self contained dwelling used for holiday lets. Therefore at the time of granting permission the Council was under the impression that the building was in use for holiday lets. It should also be noted that application HS/FA/10/00492 was made following refusal of planning application HS/FA/08/00869 which was for a replacement holiday letting in the same location. This confirms that the building had an established use for holiday lets at the time and was not an independent unit of accommodation.

Removing the condition will result in the establishment of an independent unit of accommodation in the rural area. Residential development does not require a countryside location and is not in the public interest as it is an unsustainable location. The site is away from shops, services and public transport meaning any occupants of a new dwelling would rely heavily on the use of a private car. Furthermore the establishment of an independent unit of accommodation, as stated by paragraph 10 of Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable development in Rural Areas (PPS7) requires special justification. This paragraph is supported by Annex A of PPS7 which deals with occupational dwellings. Paragraph 1 of Annex A states that one of the few circumstances when isolated dwellings may be acceptable is when accommodation is required to enable agricultural, forestry and certain other full time workers to live at, or in the immediate vicinity of their place of work. Para A goes on to state that it will often be as convenient and more sustainable for such workers to live in nearby towns or villages, or suitable existing dwellings, so avoiding new and potentially intrusive development in the countryside.

The applicants gave misleading information in order to change the ‘Use’ of the property from holiday let to residental claiming that the building had been residential since 1900. The building is of an unknown date, possibly between 1925 and 1939 when the ordnance survey maps for the area were published. There was no planning permission granted for this building, and it was originally a wooden built outbuilding, with later brickwork alterations (late 1980s).

Paragraph 6.3.6: We agree with Mrs Bahcheli’s comments. The plans should have not been accepted and the Council should have performed a measurement survey prior to the application being determined. There was still 6 weeks left for the application to be determined, there was no need for the indecent haste to get the application approved without knowing the full details.

Paragraph 6.3.7: Whether the omissions and inaccuracies in the plans were deliberate or not, the building has not been built to the approved plans. There were errors on all of the submitted documentation and plans submitted with the discharge of conditions application (HS/CD/13/00792) showed most of the ‘amendments’ that were later revealed to have already been in the pipeline. The ‘amendments’ to the plans were made a month after the original approval. Construction on the site started before the conditions were discharged. This is deception as the developers were aware of the significant changes to be made prior to construction starting on the site. Drawing number: 11.396/03 was dated March 2013 – HS/FA/12/00952 was approved on 13 February 2013. A revised drawing was requested as the submitted drawing did not show the tree screening proposal. The discharge of conditions application was not verified until 31 December 2013, and a revised plan 11.396/03B was not received until January 2014 ‘Amended as per LABCO requirements Jan 14’; the application was approved on 21 January 2014.

There is more than a degree of mistrust between the general public and the planning department at Hastings Borough Council and it does not seem likely to improve. There are significant failings within the planning department that need addressing and resolving. The Council does not appear to want to admit their mistakes and will make the situation worse rather than admit their failures.

A planning application submitted to lop, top and fell trees on the Rocklands site has been recently submitted and there has been no neighbour notification and no site notice posted. The plans have been changed as the original hand drawn plans were incorrect, and the description of the proposal changed to match the ‘amended’ plans. The case officer has also changed – all in the space of 5 days. There has been no neighbour notification, so it is not known when the cut-off date for objections is. The plans are not to scale and it is only known what the proposal is by the

37

hand-written notes scrawled on the plans. An unauthorised storage unit has now become a workshop and is four times the size of the two storey holiday let.

Trees are being removed to accommodate more caravans under the pretext that the trees are sick and need removing. The original planning application included 14 conifers that denote the boundary between the licenced part of the caravan park and the amenity area. These trees are shown on early photographs for the site when planning permission was first granted and are stipulated as being the boundary of where the siting of caravans is allowed. In spite of reassurances from the Council, the Council’s tree specialist and Mrs Bahcheli it appears as if these trees have been afforded no protection.

HS/FA/58/48/571Approved: 11 Feb 1958Applicant: Mr E G Tierney, Croft View, HastingsSituation: Rocklands, Rocklands Lane, HastingsDescription of Development: Extension of caravan site to accommodate a total of 50 caravans

1) All caravans to be sited on the north-west side of the existing belt of trees across the site and no tree shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority.

6.4 The Consideration of the Application

Paragraph 6.4.1: A petition was raised which allowed a member of the public to speak on behalf of the objectors. Mr Andrew Blackman, ‘Friends of Hastings Country Park’ spoke against the application. The officer’s committee report was compiled and posted before the petition was raised, and the officer stated in their report that a petition was expected. The decision to determine the application, before the consultation period had ended, caused additional concern and work for the objectors who had to get legal advice on the validity of the application as the true extent of the ‘amendments’ had not been addressed within the ‘minor material amendment’ planning application. It has now been admitted by the Council and Mrs Bahcheli that the process was flawed as the building is higher, bigger, is on the wrong footprint and has been misaligned; it has also been sited closer to the existing buildings and has encroached on the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’. This error is tantamount to gross maladministration and will be part of our complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Paragraph 6.4.2: The application was promoted as being an application for ‘minor amendments’; the application form suggested that it was for ‘minor material amendment’; the case officer based her decision on ‘full planning permission’. Three sections of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 were used, none of which was correct. Our barrister, Christiaan Zwart explored this in more detail, but this opinion has not been recognised by the Council, and has not been responded to.

Minor amendments are covered under section 96A; a variation to the approved plans is covered under section 73; the case officer used Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act and gave a three year implementation period for a retrospective planning application. The correct section for a ‘retrospective’ planning application is Section 73A of the Act. In spite of informing the Council on numerous occasions that the correct section of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is Section 73 for a ‘minor material amendment’ they still insist on using section 91 of the Act.

Paragraph 6.4.4: A case officer for planning application: HS/FA/14/00406 did not follow accepted guidelines and based her decision on flawed plans and misleading evidence. The exact measurements of the building were not confirmed prior to the application being determined in spite of the evidence provided by the objectors and their legal advisor. The objectors asked for a measurement survey to be undertaken prior to determination their requests were ignored. Paragraph 6.4.5: Mrs Bahcheli also seems to be confused as to what application: HS/FA/14/00406 actually was. The description stated that it was a ‘minor amendment’ which is in planning terms is a ‘minor non-material amendment’, the application form referred to a Section 73 application, which covers ‘minor material amendments’ and the committee report referred to the application as being an ‘amendment’ to the previously approved scheme. The Development Control Manager was asked by one of the Councillors what a ‘minor material amendment’ was and was told it can be whatever they want it to be as there are no written guidelines. The application was determined under section 91 of the Town and Country Act 1990 which is for ‘full planning permission’. The case officer imposed a three year timescale for implementation when it should have been linked to the parent approval.

Paragraph 6.4.6: We have not been aware of a public apology made by the Development Control Manager, Raymond Crawford, who stated in the planning committee meeting that the building was only 2 inches higher than the approved plans. He also told the planning committee members that Policy C1 was not a planning consideration as the site was not within the ‘Old Town Conservation Area’. He also said that other related policies were not applicable. The officer’s

38

committee report was not amended to reflect the mistakes. Section 91 was quoted on the officer’s report when it is Section 73A that the application should have been determined under. The date of decision was wrong and the implementation time was wrong. The amendments that were recorded on the plans were outside of the application site; the planning committee members were told by Mr Crawford to ignore them.

An apology that is not available to the general public is not sufficient under the circumstances. Mr Crawford allowed the application to be classed as a ‘minor material amendment’ by feeding the planning committee members with false information as he stated that the height difference of 2 inches, between the approved plans and the revised plans, was within a reasonable tolerance when in fact the figure should have been 55 cm, which by the Council’s own admission cannot be classed as a ‘minor material amendment’. The actual figures are much worse. The errors in measurement calculations were reflected on the delegated officer’s report which was endorsed by Mr Crawford. This mistake could have led to an unfavourable decision which would have cost the Council money if the applicants had appealed and won.

Paragraph 6.4.7: Planning application HS/FA/10/00492 although recorded in the planning history, should not be noted as material consideration when determining this ‘retrospective’ planning application for three reasons:

The planning permission had already expired unimplemented by the time that HS/FA/14/00406 was registered

HS/FA/12/00952 has been implemented so therefore, the applicant could not fall back on the previously approved plans

The bungalow had already been demolished by the time that HS/FA/14/00406 was registered so therefore, a bungalow extension would have been out of the question.

Paragraph 6.4.8: Again Mrs Bahcheli’s comments are casting doubt on the evidence in front of her. Planning application: HS/FA/14/00406 was promoted and submitted for determination as a ‘minor material amendment’ when all of the supporting evidence suggested otherwise. It was agreed by the Council’s tree specialist that the Conditions relating to tree replanting schemes would be virtually impossible to implement as the replacement species would take many years to provide sufficient screening, that was if they took at all, as the prevailing winds on the East Hill and with an exposed site, would make establishment of trees difficult.

Paragraph 6.4.9: The ‘amendments’ outlined in the committee report understated the actual measurements and disregards any adverse material harm the proposals might have had. The valid comments made by AONB were ignored, and the plans did not reflect all of the changes. Conditions that were imposed on planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 had already been discharged (21 January 2014). A new condition would have needed to be included that addressed the lack of screening on the north-east corner of the building. The hedgerow that was to be increased had been removed to accommodate an access road from the car parking facilities, and for a disabled access to the new property. The screening in this vicinity could not be increased as it had been removed during development.

Paragraph 6.4.10: The judgement made by the planning officer was flawed as they did not take the objection letters into consideration that stated that the building’s measurement and proposed changes made to the building without permission had been understated and incorrect. The Objectors asked the Development Control Manager to re-measure the building - this request was denied by Mr Crawford. If, as been stated, that Mr Crawford has apologised for the mistakes made during the decision making process, then Mr Crawford must have admitted that his judgement had been flawed. Again this is tantamount to gross maladministration.

Paragraph 6.4.11: Mrs Bahcheli states that in her opinion most of the ‘amendments’ could fall within the category of ‘minor material’. The application was promoted as a ‘minor material amendment’ under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (although the officer’s report stated that it was a ‘full planning application’ to be decided under Section 91 of the Act). Therefore, all of the ‘amendments’ should have been ‘minor’. It was obvious that the list of ‘minor material amendments’ culminated into significant amendments that would have taken it out of the scope of a ‘minor material amendment’ application. The height, footprint and orientation of the building are things that should have been investigated prior to the application being determined.

Nothing physically has changed since the application was considered for approval – it is only the actual measurements that have been confirmed. A re-measurement of the building has given the Council the opportunity to revisit the ‘refusal’ decision rather than taking enforcement action. Mrs Bahcheli contradicts herself as she has stated in previous paragraphs that the consultees could have visited the property to see what the actual measurements were but absolves the Council for blame in getting actual measurements taken wrong. If the measurements had been reported correctly by the Development Control Manager then we would not be faced with a further retrospective planning application to again try and regularise the unauthorised building.

39

The vegetation around the two storey holiday let was removed before the application HS/FA/14/00406 was submitted for consideration, nothing has changed on the site since the application was refused. The effect on the landscape, caused by previous works within the Country Park, such as tree loss and instability has nothing to do with the application that is proposed to be resubmitted and are outside of the redline area of the site. Conditions cannot be put on this application that relate to areas not within the application site. The changes within the caravan park were prior to the application’s refusal and cannot be used as an excuse to revisit the refusal decision.

The case officer was made aware of the height difference in the objection letters and the retaining wall and new position of the building reported. These anomalies were ignored by both the case officer and the Development Control Manager who tried to trivialise the exact measurements. Mrs Bahcheli mentions the measurement survey, that has shown the building to have increased in size and height, is on the wrong footprint and orientation changed as if it was just a little oversight. The building is not substantially different from the approved plans apart from a height difference of 59 cm; a 40 cm increase of all elevations; is three metres closer to the existing property and has been rotated so that the occupants can get a better view. The redline area has also changed, the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ has been breached and trees and ancient hedgerows have been ripped out, which has destroyed important habitats for local wildlife.

Paragraph 6.4.12: Planning application: HS/FA/14/00406 sought to regularise the approved ‘as built’ building, which was promoted as a ‘minor material amendment’. The applicants have already submitted a ‘retrospective’ planning application and that failed. Mrs Bahcheli previously stated that the flawed plans should not have confused consultees as they could have visited the site to determine what the actual proposal was. It was only through the persistence of the local residents that a measurement survey was performed and that has proved that the changes are too significant to have been classed as a ‘minor material amendment’ in the first place. Mrs Bahcheli seems to imply that it is only the landscaping, drainage and land stability that needs addressing, but these are all surveys that are required before development takes place. The applicant has not supplied tree replanting schemes or geotechnical surveys in spite of being asked. This action relies too much on the applicant’s goodwill. It is known that enforcement action will not be taken against the applicants under any circumstances.

6.5 Subsequent Action

Paragraph 6.5.2: The change in vegetation around the two storey holiday let has affected the local amenity. Planning permission: HS/FA/12/00952 was approved as the ‘Heritage Statement’ stated that the effect on the setting from the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ would be slightly adverse. Third party consultees based their comments on the ‘Heritage Statement’ that the only views that would be compromised would be the ones within the caravan park itself. The building is now exposed to the views from the ‘SAM’, the Country Park and Ecclesbourne Glen and further coppicing is proposed to expose the building even further. The general public are incensed about the tree and hedge removal that has not only exposed the building, but has destroyed important habitats. The diverse range of trees and hedges that were removed were a vital source of food for birds, mammals and insects. The Council has been negligent in allowing these important habitats to be destroyed, and has gone against their own policies and guidelines in not ensuring that ecology issues were addressed prior to the planning application being granted and has been grossly incompetent in not addressing the problems this unauthorised building and unauthorised works have caused to the local amenity post construction.

Paragraph 6.5.3: It appears as if we do not have an approved Local Enforcement Plan and that a draft plan has been prepared, but not submitted to the Council members for ratification. Surely the adverse publicity highlighting the illegal activities that have occurred within this caravan park, and the lack of enforcement action taken, should be a reason to make sure that this Local Enforcement Plan is scrutinised by the general public before being endorsed. It is obvious that we do not have an effective enforcement team and if there are measures that can be taken that will restore the public’s confidence in planning procedures then surely this should be addressed as soon as possible. More and more planning applications are being approved with ‘suitably worded conditions’ rather than risking the application being refused and appealed against. This debacle that has been caused by approving applications with conditions that cannot be monitored, or enforced, has proved that the current enforcement procedure is not working.

Paragraph 6.5.4: Mrs Bahcheli has referred to the paragraph below that is taken from the National Planning Policy Framework but has omitted some relevant text which is copied below:

Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 17b-003-20140306

‘When should enforcement action be taken?

There is a range of ways of tackling alleged breaches of planning control, and local planning authorities should  act in a proportionate way.

40

Local planning authorities have discretion to take enforcement action, when they regard it as expedient to do so having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations. This includes a local enforcement plan, where it is not part of the development plan.

In considering any enforcement action, the local planning authority should have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraph 207:

National Planning Policy Framework 207. Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control. Local planning authorities should consider publishing a local enforcement plan to manage enforcement proactively in a way that is appropriate to their area. This should set out how they will monitor the implementation of planning permissions, investigate alleged cases of unauthorised development and take action where it is appropriate to do so.

The provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights such as Article 1 of the First Protocol, Article 8 and Article 14 are relevant when considering enforcement action. There is a clear public interest in enforcing planning law and planning regulation in a proportionate way. In deciding whether enforcement action is taken, local planning authorities should, where relevant, have regard to the potential impact on the health, housing needs and welfare of those affected by the proposed action, and those who are affected by a breach of planning control.

There has been no reference made to the effect the breaches have had on the local residents who frequent the Country Park or on tourism to the area; the Country Park attracts thousands of local residents and visitors each year. Tourism has been affected by the breaches as visitors cannot complete the walks that are promoted in the local brochures that are distributed by the Information Centre.

The guideline suggests that the Local Planning authorities should consider publishing a local enforcement plan to manage enforcement proactively but this is only in the draft plan stage, and has not been taken to the Council members for approval, and has not been the subject of public consultation.

The general public have no confidence in the enforcement process as their concerns are met with excuses rather than immediate action taken. Complaints should be dealt with in order of priority and areas that are within the AONB should be awarded the highest protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Paragraph 115 requires great weight to be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

Successful enforcement action will mitigate the harm to the surrounding locality within the AONB and prevent further damage to a site of regional and local archaeological significance.

Paragraph 6.5.5: It seems as if the Council’s approach is to ignore breaches of planning conditions rather than taking any enforcement action. The effect on the AONB and the amenity of the area has not been addressed and the only remedial action that will be taken is to allow the developers to submit a replanting scheme that has little chance of either success, or being undertaken as it not in the developer’s interest.

Mrs Bahcheli again quoted paragraph 187 of the NPPF:

‘Local Planning Authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with the applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.’

The Ministerial foreword, written by the Rt Hon Greg Clark, Minister for Planning, to the NPPF states:

‘Sustainable development is about change for the better and not only in our built environment.

Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations.

Development means growth…

Our natural environment is essential to our wellbeing, and it can be better looked after than it has been. Habits that have been degraded can be restored. Species that have been isolated can be reconnected. Green belt land that has been depleted of diversity can be refilled by nature – and opened to people to experience it, to the benefit of body and soul.

41

Our historic environment – buildings, landscapes, towns and villages – can better be cherished if their spirit of place thrives, rather than withers.

In order to fulfil its purpose of helping achieve sustainable development, planning must not simply be about scrutiny. Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives…

This should be a collective enterprise. Yet, in recent years, planning has tended to exclude, rather than to include, people and communities. In part, this has been a result of targets being imposed and decisions taken, by bodies remote from them…

Mrs Bahcheli over emphasises the importance of a replacement holiday let that does nothing to protect the landscape and the scenic beauty.

The two storey holiday let is replacing a holiday let on the same site – it is not a residential property to accommodate a family and to house the rising population. It is a replacement building on the same site and will not improve industry or create local employment.

Local Context

Paragraph 6.5.8: It would appear from our personal experience, and the experiences reported from other members of the public who have had dealings with the enforcement team, that they do not seem to interact with the complainer or show then any level of respect. Their serious complaints, about breaches of planning conditions, are either ignored or the response received is weighted towards the developer and his needs.

Paragraph 5.5.9: Mrs Bahcheli remarks in her report that the enforcement department are proactive in Section 215 notices which shows that there are other areas where they may tackle the problems that have arisen from this unauthorised building that they can address even if they are not prepared to take enforcement action against the developers for breaches of planning conditions. The caravan park is complete eye sore and instead of tackling the problem they allow it to get worse by not taking immediate action. A lack of enforcement action on the site has led to the destruction of Ecclesbourne Glen.

Untidy Land Notices (Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act)

Information on untidy land, what remedies the Local Planning Authority has, and a copy of the best practice guidance.From a community point of view, tidy gardens and land mean an area looks well cared for making people feel safe in that neighbourhood. If untidy sites are left, they become worse and the area starts to feel neglected and unsafe. Untidy sites are rarely dangerous to public health but they will be an eyesore, which means it is detrimental to the local amenity.

The council can serve an ‘amenity’ notice on the owner of any land or building which is in an unreasonably untidy condition and we consider has an adverse effect on the amenity of the area. This is done under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

This notice is used to maintain and improve the quality of the environment, to assist in tackling dereliction and retaining land in a productive use as well as contribute to the regeneration of an area and respond positively to public concerns.

Paragraph 6.5.10: Breaches of planning conditions are brought to the attention of the Council by local residents who are concerned about their area of residence and have a right to be heard. Breaches of planning conditions are bought to the attention of the enforcement department and these reports are either ignored or discounted. If the breaches in conditions on Rocklands had been dealt with correctly at the time we would not now be in the situation we are in. If planning breaches are reported then the most sensible thing to have done would be to check the actual planning applications that relate to the site to see whether conditions have been imposed that need to be enforced.

In our experience getting the enforcement office to listen is a long, drawn out affair where the breach is initially ignored or further information is requested before eventually being denied. It takes an incredible amount of time to get the department to listen to our concerns, let alone act upon them.

The accepted way of dealing with planning applications is to impose ‘suitably worded conditions’ to the planning approvals rather than an application being refused, which risks the chance of an appeal against the decision. The common line with planning decisions is ‘We have to pass this, as if we refuse it the developer will take it to appeal and win, which will cost the Council money.’ It now transpires that there are no follow up procedures to ensure that

42

conditions are adhered to, and carried out, and that the reliance is put on the general public who are then blasted for daring to interfere with the normal process of ignoring the issues in the hope that they will go away.

Range of Enforcement Measures Available

Paragraph 6.5.11: In the case of Rocklands Caravan Holiday Park the accepted enforcement measures taken, was to do nothing at all.

Paragraph 6.5.12: Mrs Bahcheli quotes National Planning Practice Guidance notes as stating that taking no enforcement action at all can be the quickest and most cost effective method of resolving the issues. As with any planning application this would need to be decided on the individual merits and would obviously have to take into account the actual breach, whether or not it was intentional and whether the breach could be remedied in a quick and timely fashion.

‘Ensuring effective enforcement

No formal action

Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 17b-010-20140306

Can breaches of planning control be addressed without formal enforcement action, such as an enforcement notice?

Addressing breaches of planning control without formal enforcement action can often be the quickest and most cost effective way of achieving a satisfactory and lasting remedy. For example, a breach of control may be the result of a genuine mistake where, once the breach is identified, the owner or occupier takes immediate action to remedy it. Furthermore in some instances formal enforcement action may not be appropriate.

It is advisable for the local planning authority to keep a record of any informal action taken, including a decision not to take further action.

When might formal enforcement action not be appropriate?

Nothing in this guidance should be taken as condoning a wilful breach of planning law. Enforcement action should, however, be proportionate to the breach of planning control to which it relates and taken when it is expedient to do so. Where the balance of public interest lies will vary from case to case.

In deciding, in each case, what is the most appropriate way forward, local planning authorities should usually avoid taking formal enforcement action where:

there is a trivial or technical breach of control which causes no material harm or adverse impact on the amenity of the site or the surrounding area;

development is acceptable on its planning merits and formal enforcement action would solely be to regularise the development;

in their assessment, the local planning authority consider that an application is the appropriate way forward to regularise the situation, for example, where planning conditions need to be imposed.’

Mrs Bahcheli has not based her analysis on the planning approval that has been breached, but on acceptable measures to be taken if the breach is inconsequential and causes no material harm or adverse impact. This is based on her own personal opinion, and does not take into account the effect the unauthorised building has had on the general public, or the amenity areas of the Country Park and Ecclesbourne Glen. Mrs Bahcheli has written this report in a detached and unsympathetic way and has not taken the local residents’ concerns on board and only mentions them if she feels that incorrect planning procedures might not have been followed correctly. Mrs Bahcheli bases all of her comments on facts as she sees them, and whether she considers the Council has acted appropriately, and within their legal remit. This might be the correct way in which to look at things, if there were not the significant mistakes that were made in determining the parent approval and the subsequent ‘revised’ application. The report is totally biased towards the Council and the applicants, who it appears, can do no wrong.

Mrs Bahcheli seems to forget that negotiations have already taken place between the Council and the developers and that is why planning application: HS/FA/14/00406 was registered to regularise the ‘as built’ building. A ‘retrospective’ planning application was submitted at the advice of the planning department; the application went through the planning process and was subsequently refused. The developers had the chance then to take the decision to appeal to see whether the Inspector for the Secretary of State upheld or rejected the planning committee’s decision. An application

43

to regularise the building has been refused, and nothing has changed since the initial refusal, other than the exact building measurements, and footprint being confirmed. Mrs Bahcheli has stated in this report that it does not matter whether the plans are flawed and that the case officer should have been able to come to an informed decision without all of the relevant information being to hand. HS/FA/12/00952 had insufficient evidence, but was approved under delegated powers. It has now come to light that the initial drawings were flawed and contained misleading information. The application was approved, and as it has not been quashed in a Court of Law is valid in spite of its flaws.

Paragraph 6.5.13: The Planning Authority invited a planning application to regularise the unauthorised building and that was refused on 18 June 2014. We have already completed the first stage so therefore, enforcement action can be taken. The accepted guideline is that the planning department should only invite an owner or developer to make a retrospective application if they consider that there may be a realistic prospect that planning permission would be granted for the development either in its existing or in a modified form. It is not usual to invite the submission of a ‘retrospective’ planning application if the likely outcome is to be a refusal and the same proposal has already been refused once. This could be classed as unreasonable behaviour and could go against the Council should the applicants appeal against a refusal decision.

Parargraph 6.5.14: A Planning Contravention Notice was served on the developers on 2 July 2014 and it is understood that a meeting took place with the applicants and the Council to discuss the way forward. The results of the ‘PCN’ have not been made public and the Campaign Group has not been kept informed about the outcome of the investigations. No action has been taken against the developer for breaches of planning conditions and the applicants have been invited to submit a further ‘retrospective’ planning application to regularise the ‘as built’ building. The pretext of this decision is that changes have been made to the application and the development site that has allowed the Council to revisit the decision and to invite a further application for the same proposal. This is incorrect as the only difference between the refusal date and now is that the actual building’s measurements have been confirmed.

Paragraph 6.5.15: There have been several other planning breaches that has occurred within the caravan park, that are not connected to the holiday let site, and these have not been addressed either. There have been unauthorised terracing on the site and the siting of unauthorised caravans. The area of this terracing was reserved as an amenity area where the siting of caravans, cars and tents were prohibited. There have been unauthorised roads built in areas that were reserved for landscaping where the siting of caravans, cars and tents was prohibited. An unauthorised storage unit has been built which expressly goes against a condition that no buildings other than ablutions blocks are allowed in order to preserve the amenity of the area. The ‘Use’ of the building has now been changed without permission so that it is now a workshop, and not a storage unit. This building is not for agricultural use which would be permittable in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Other unauthorised structures have been installed without permission and many trees removed that were protected by planning conditions attached to the planning approvals.

No enforcement action has been taken as there is either insufficient evidence that the breaches occurred or that the unauthorised structures can be ratified retrospectively or will be the subject of a ‘Certificate of Lawful Use or Development’ or did not require permission as they are covered under ‘Permitted Development Rights’. All are excuses that cannot be substantiated as the caravan park is covered by conservation rules.

Paragraph 6.5.16: All of the unauthorised developments were concealed from the general public by dense tree covering that has since been removed. The caravan park is a private area and there is no access to the general public. It seems as if unauthorised works are allowable if there are no complaints made about the development before the four year immunity period has expired. Reports made by the general public about the unauthorised works were ignored by enforcement or excuses made.

Paragraph 6.5.18: A breach of condition notice was appropriate in respect of the removal of trees, unauthorised roads, caravans, terracing, storage unit and solar panels. Evidence was supplied by the general public and the Campaign Group but no action has been taken. There were separate breaches of conditions on the holiday let development and once again no action has been taken or will be taken until there is a favourable result to the ‘retrospective’ planning application. If there is a refusal decision taken there is no guarantee that the application will not be back on the table for reconsideration until the right result for the Council and the applicants is made.

Enforcement in the matter of the Holiday Let Building

Paragraph 6.5.20: No action has been taken against the breach of planning condition 5 on planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 that resulted in a significant number of trees being removed and an ‘Important Hedgerow’ being ripped out. It has been stated that as the condition has been discharged that no action can be taken. This is incorrect as the condition was in two parts; the first part being the tree screening proposal and the second being that the developers conformed to the agreement. This did not happen.

Paragraph 6.5.21: Once again the fault is laid at someone else’s door other than the applicant. It is now the fault of the architect and the builders, or the builder alone could be solely to blame for the fact that the building did not

44

conform to the approved plans. The builder would have built to the plans that he had been given, he would not have been able to build without plans, and would not have made it up as he went along. The architect would have drawn up plans using details specified by the applicant based on what he required in terms of holiday accommodation. The plans would have been submitted to the applicant for approval – the design might have been suggested by the architect, but the ultimate decision would have been with the applicant. The applicant lives on site and would have been aware of each stage of development. The applicant must have been aware of the breaches to the planning conditions at every stage. The materials must have been bought for the finished design and size of build or the windows and doors would not have fit. The following changes have been made that would have been evident to the developer at every stage:

The building is in a different place and position than approved The building is cut into the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ All tree and hedge screening has been removed The new build is 80 cm higher than the approved plans The building has massively increased balconies The windows to the property are not to the approved plans The footprint of the ground floor and second floor are larger than the approved plans The position of the windows has changed The ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ has been levelled between the ‘Rocklands House’ and the new property.

It seems unreasonable to believe that the architect and builder would have acted without prior authorisation from the owner of the caravan park.

In addition substantial unauthorised developments have taken place on the lower slope that cannot be attributed to the architect or builders involved with the holiday let construction:

Removal of many trees Terracing to allow installation of unauthorised caravans Lighting installed around caravans Electrical works to connect caravans Drainage works to connect caravans Installation of eight unauthorised caravans – were the owners unaware of the revenue from these unauthorised

caravans? Extensions of car parks Extensions of roads Construction of storage building/workshop Installation of advertising sign in Rocklands Lane

Caravan Park Site Licences were issued to the owners of the caravan park without any site visits being performed to ensure that they were adhering to the terms of their licence. It is stated that no visits had been made to the caravan park since 1994, not even when the current owners took over the site in 1997. All of these substantial changes made without permission could have been halted in the early stages had proper procedures been taken at the time.

The breaches made to the planning approvals that relate to the holiday let site are not one off incidents that can be explained as applicant was not aware that they had to conform to conditions attached to planning approvals. The applicants, Mr and Mrs Guilliard submitted revised plans that showed many of the substantial changes later made to the property without permission. The drawings submitted with the ‘Discharge of Condition’ application were dated March 2013, a month after HS/FA/12/00952 was approved. This suggest that the current ‘as built’ building was what was intended all along. This is not a mistake it is deception. Although the case officer can be accused of negligence in not noticing the substantial changes to the plans it has to be realised that she was only looking at the tree proposal that was indicated on the plans; the actual evidence was signed off by a senior officer, Karen Phillips.

Paragraph 6.2.22: There has been a long communication process between the applicants and the Council and no action taken. It has been six months since a request was made for a tree replanting scheme and a geotechnical survey undertaken into the stability of the slope and nothing has been confirmed. It appears to the Campaigners that the Council is taking every effort to support Rocklands.

Paragraph 6.2.23: The applicants may have been advised that to restart work on the holiday let building was at their own risk, but that did not stop Mr Guilliard trying to further breach condition 5 by cutting down more tree screening. This action had to be reported to the Council who stopped the action. By not taking Enforcement Action the Council is relying on the owner’s goodwill.

Paragraph 6.5.25: The applicants have already provided an application to regularise the building and that failed. Planning application was submitted as an application that, if approved, would have provided full planning permission

45

for the building as a whole. There was no suggestion that this process would have only provided planning permission for the ‘minor material amendments’ that had been admitted to during the planning process. It was the case officer who decided that the changes made to the plans were not significant enough to require a full planning application with supporting evidence. The case officer and Development Control Manager were made aware that not all of the changes had been recorded, or had been understated in the officer’s committee report. There was no justification of the significant changes that were made to the proposal that were outside of the application site area – the committee members were told to ignore them as they were outside of the application site.

There was no indication where on the site these additional elements were to be located as insufficient evidence was provided by the applicants. The case officer was made aware of a retaining wall to the rear of the property, but chose to ignore this as it would have been outside the remit of a ‘minor material amendment’; and was outside the redline area of the site. The Council was made aware that the height of the property did not conform to the approved plans but the Development Control Manager miscalculated the actual height and trivialised it as if it was a huge joke. The difference between 2 inches and 2 feet is considerable in building terms as you need to look at the volume of the increases.

There is nothing to say that should this application be refused that it is not back on the table again for reconsideration at a later date. The actual measurements have not been confirmed as the Standen Associates report has not been submitted as a whole. The Campaigners suspect that the dimensions of all elevations have increased by at least 40 cm and that once again the actual height of the building has been understated.

Paragraph 6.5.26: The evidence submitted with application HS/FA/14/00406 may have been deficient and the plans incorrect but it went through the planning procedure, and was refused by planning committee members. Valid reasons for refusal were given and a unanimous vote was given. This decision has not been challenged by the applicants, and the decision has not been quashed in a Court of Law. Mrs Bahcheli states that it was not possible to properly assess the proposals. Evidence was provided by local residents that were ignored by the case officer and the Development Control Manager. The consultation period was only in its third week when it was decided to put it on the agenda for the next planning committee meeting. The application was determined within four weeks. There was no reason for the application to be rushed through with such indecent haste before the full dimensions to the building were known. Campaigners asked for a measurement survey to confirm, whilst the application was on the table, but this was denied. As Mrs Bahcheli has not apportioned any blame on either the Council or the applicants, who then is to blame for this proposal being flawed and what is her justification for saying that normal practices need not be observed in this case? If the application had been approved, then we doubt whether there would be any criticism on the way in which it was handled and as not challenged would still stand.

Paragraph 6.5.27: Mrs Bahcheli has stated previously that the fact that the drawings were flawed was not a reason for refusal and that the case officer was able to come to an informed decision using the evidence that was in front of her. It has been stated that third party representatives could have looked at the ‘as built’ building to know what was actually there. The applicants now need time to compile ‘a new planning application’ with drawings that reflect what is actually there.

Paragraph 6.5.28: The planning application that was not conformed to was HS/FA/12/00952 and not HS/FA/12/00471 as that was refused. The public contacted the Council as soon as development started as they were concerned that there was significant tree removal around the proposal that had exposed the development works. The Council maintained their view that the changes were only ‘minor material’ changes up until the application was refused on 18 June 2014. If the application had been approved then that view would have still stood and they would not have been swayed otherwise. The measurement survey was only performed after considerable local pressure and the results of the survey not revealed until Counsel Advice taken.

Paragraph 6.5.29: This is just a statement that the Council could have investigated our concerns during the consultation period. It is unusual that the objectors get sight of the case officer’s recommendations during the consultation period. It was because the case officer decided to send the application to the next committee meeting, and had written their report, and had posted it online, before the consultation period had ended that we were able to comment against the many, many inaccuracies. It has been stated over and over again that no correspondence that has been received after the consultation period will be considered. If there is a major error in the report then it can only be picked up if the committee members notice it, as the local people are unable to make comment as they are too late. A speaker against the application only has 5 minutes to put their case across and this would not have covered the many, many faults. The application had been determined under the wrong section of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; this was not changed. The date of decision was wrong; the Development Control Manager had to make the committee aware. Where are the recommendations that will stop this from happening again?

Paragraph 6.5.30: Condition 5 was discharged on 21 January 2014 and concerned a tree planting scheme to increase the hedge and tree screening that bordered the lawn area of the new property. There were additional changes to the planting scheme on the resubmitted drawings that showed additional tree screening to the north-east

46

of the building. The existing trees and hedgerow were removed prior to Condition 5 being discharged so therefore the screening could not be increased. Tree and hedge screening to the rear of the property and on the south-west boundary were removed prior to the condition being discharged. The submitted drawings and all documentation indicated that this screening was to remain.

The drawings submitted to discharge the condition were materially incorrect as they showed an unauthorised disabled access and the tree screening had been relocated to an area outside of the application site to accommodate the changes. The existing trees to the north-east of the property and dense hedgerow have been removed to accommodate an access from the car parking facilities to the new property.

Application: HS/FA/14/00406 has the discharged condition reinstated to cover the fact that this additional screening is not now possible. By removing the existing screening, the applicants breached the condition prior to the condition being discharged, so therefore the submitted drawings showed false information. There was no way in which the screening could be increased as it had been removed altogether.

It is irrelevant that the condition would have been implemented after the construction had been completed as the agreement made between the applicants and the planning department was that the existing tree screening remained whilst the development was under construction and that the additional screening be implemented post construction. We are not sure what is being suggested here, is it that as the condition related to post construction work that it does not matter that trees and hedges that were to remain, were removed?

Only the first part of the condition was discharged the second part that the tree screening proposal should conform to the approved plans was not adhered to so therefore, enforcement action can be taken.

This is a matter for concern, and as the condition has been breached, enforcement action can be taken. The condition was imposed ‘pursuant to development’ so under normal circumstances would be discharged before development commences. If the developer does not conform to the authorised details, which are signed off by the authorising officer, then they are breaching the terms of their conditions.

‘Condition 5: No development shall take place until a plan to increase the screening effect of the hedges and trees that currently border the lawns adjacent to the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.’

The submitted details were agreed in writing between the Council and the developer. The developer did not conform to the details outlined within the agreement, therefore the developer has breached the terms of the condition. The discharge of conditions only applied to a request for a tree planting scheme; the developer went against what was agreed on the Decision Notice.

It is not understood why condition 4 ‘Details of Materials’ is considered more appropriate as even that has been breached as the colour of the building is not as was agreed on the ‘Decision Notice’.

Paragraph 6.5.31: Two plans were submitted in respect of a tree replanting scheme. The first, drawing number: 11.396/03 showed most of the ‘amendments’ that were submitted with planning application: HS/FA/14/00406. The case officer must have noticed that there was no details of the tree screening on this plan and so therefore, requested a further plan which was accepted as evidence.

Why was drawing number: 11.396/03 submitted as it did not relate to the condition that it was purporting to discharge? All of the additional ‘amendments’ within the redline area would have required planning permission and were later submitted under planning application: HS/FA/14/00406. The additional amendments noted on the plans would also have required planning permission, but as a separate application as they were outside of the redline area of the site. Drawing number: 11.396/03B was accepted as the approved plan and drawing number: 11/396/01A marked as ‘superseded’. This is incorrect as the subsequent plan had not replaced the approved plans through the planning process.

6.6 Conclusion on HS/FA/14/00406

Paragraph 6.6.1: It appears as if it does not matter to Mrs Bahcheli that incorrect procedures were followed with application: HS/FA/14/00406 as they can be rectified in a further ‘retrospective’ planning application. Southern Water and Building Control should have been consulted when planning application: HS/FA/12/00952 was on the table as insufficient evidence was received. No details on how foul sewerage, grey water and surface water were to be disposed was included with the application – the applicants wrote ‘unknown’. By classing this application as a ‘minor material amendment’ the case officer denied correct procedures to be followed as the only elements within the planning application to be look at were the actual changes outlined on the submitted drawings. Amendments to the sewerage and land drainage systems were outside of the application site.

47

It would appear as if the deficiencies within planning application: HS/FA/14/00406 is to be used as an excuse to pave the way for a further ‘retrospective’ planning application. HS/FA/14/00406 is valid, in spite of its significant flaws, and has not been legally challenged by either the applicants or the Council.

Paragraph 6.6.2: The plans submitted with the ‘retrospective’ planning application were incorrect as the balcony extension on the south-west elevation had been negated. This oversight was intentional and deceptive. A revised plan was submitted showing changes to the original proposal and it was not considered applicable to reassess. The application was still considered to be a ‘minor material amendment’ in spite of the changes that increased the size of the building even more. Site visits had been carried out prior to the application being received, so therefore the plans should have been checked in more detail. It is understood that enforcement officers measured the building for accuracy. The Development Control Manager miscalculated the measurements and gave false information to planning committee members. Further letters to objectors were posted and the reconsulation period reduced. The ‘revised’ plans were not available for viewing until after the reporting officer had written their committee report.

There are bigger faults within the planning system other than flawed plans.

Paragraph 6.6.3: The reporting officer, Mrs Carol Boydell, noted the comments made by High Weald AONB but did not use their comments as an argument either for or against her decision, she just ignored it. Mr Shaw’s comments were valid and applicable.

The High Weald AONB commented that they were unhappy with the proposal; this was not included in the committee report. ‘This application by extending the balcony and increasing the physical mass and obtrusiveness of the construction has materially changed the scale and impact of the development. On balance we consider that the development… will have a serious impact of people’s enjoyment of the natural beauty of the area’.

The case officer decided that High Weald AONB needed re-consulting on this ‘amended’ application, but then did not have the decency to make regard to their comments. Their comments were used in the decision making, when the original permission was passed, and now suddenly, when it suits, their comments are not worth making reference to, and no reason is given as to why their objections are not considered relevant.

POLICY L2High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Planning permission will not be granted for development that would adversely affect the natural beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Permission for major development proposals will not be granted unless there is a compelling case for them in the public interest.

L2 was obviously considered as being the policy that was applicable to this planning application but it was not even mentioned in the determination of the application.

8.70 The Council recognises the national importance of the High Weald AONB. Any development which would adversely affect the natural beauty of the landscape will not be supported. Major development schemes will generally be inconsistent with the AONB designation and will be required to meet the above criteria demonstrating that they are in the public interest before being allowed to proceed. Proposals for the conservation and enhancement of the landscape will be encouraged.

Mrs Bahcheli makes reference to the change in vegetation around the proposal, but previously stated that there was no evidence of tree removal around the site. This is a personal opinion from Mrs Bahcheli, made after she had spoken to the applicants who showed her a stump of an Ash tree and some holly that had been cut back. Mrs Bahcheli did not base her opinion on fact: photographic evidence provided with the application; statements made in the ‘Heritage Statement’ that the proposed property was screened by dense vegetation; the planning officer’s delegated and committee reports reported the dense tree and hedge screening that surrounded the property.

Mrs Boydell wrote in her committee report ‘A significant amount of the screening in the vicinity of the building has been lost since building works commenced’.

The question of land stability was not addressed at any stage during the determination of this application in spite of a history of instability within the application site and within a broader area.

Paragraph 6.6.4: Mrs Bahcheli states that it is ‘fortuitous’ that this application was refused because it did not represent the development accurately and would have been very difficult to control after the event. Mrs Bahcheli seems to think that the application’s rejection was by accident rather than by design; chance · unexpected · unanticipated · unpredictable…

48

Although the planning application was dealt with in a rather sloppy way by both the reporting officer and the Development Control Manager, who misrepresented the proposal in their report, and during the planning committee meeting, the final decision, made unanimously, by the planning committee members was the right decision. It might have been unanticipated by the planning department, who thought that the application would be approved, but it was not an accident that it was approved. If the decision made by the planning committee had been the wrong one, or there were doubts in whether their decision could stand, then the applicants would have appealed against the decision. The applicant did not appeal, as subsequent measurements surveys commissioned by the Council, after pressure from the public, revealed that the building was higher; bigger, on the wrong footprint and had been misaligned.

The development will still be difficult to control after the event, as it is obvious that ‘suitably worded conditions’ will be added to any approval of a further ‘retrospective’ planning application. The Council has proved by their lack of previous enforcement action against the developers, in spite of copious amounts of evidence, that any further breaches in planning conditions will be ignored and excuses made.

Paragraph 6.6.5: Under the circumstances we do not think that the Council could do anything but request their own ‘Independent Measurement Survey’ as they could not rely on the information submitted from the applicants. No measurements taken by enforcement would have shown that the building was not on the correct footprint, was nearer to the existing property, or that it was misaligned.

Paragraph 6.6.6: We are concerned that Mrs Bahcheli is recommending a full planning application with supporting evidence, but this is a little too late after the event. This should have been required when the parent approval was submitted for determination. As the ground work has already been completed, and the tree screening removed,We cannot see how geotechnical surveys and tree surveys are applicable or enforceable in this instance. The applicant has already breached three of the five conditions imposed on the parent approval; tree screening; colour of rendering; and not conforming to the approved plans, and no action has been taken. The Condition concerning ‘holiday-let use only’ does not preclude long term stays; in fact they advertise long term stays on their website for the six flats with penthouse suite. There would be no control on the property becoming residential. The applicants signed a declaration stating that the property had been in residential use only since 1900. The property was not built until the 1920s or 1930s. It was only after a ‘Change of Use’ application was refused that the property reverted to being classed as a holiday-let unit.

Paragraph 6.6.7: What happens if this further ‘retrospective’ planning application is refused? Will the application continue to be put back on the table until it is passed? Wear down the opposition.

The Storage Building, Solar Panels and Enforcement Issues

7.1 Background

It is hard to understand why these unauthorised developments have been targeted when there are more serious breaches in both planning permission and caravan park licenses that have not been either mentioned or addressed; unauthorised caravans, unauthorised terracing, unauthorised car parks and roads, etc.

Paragraph 7.1.1: This statement is inaccurate as the general public became aware of unauthorised works from 2005 when trees were removed revealing new roads and car parking area in areas previously designated as amenity and landscaping areas.

Paragraph 7.1.2: The storage unit/workshop does not have the benefit of planning permission and was spotted on Google Earth images by concerned residents prior to the Council acknowledging the present of the unit and the fact that it was unauthorised.

Paragraph 7.1.4: The unauthorised structures should be treated as separate issues and addressed on an individual basis. It is not correct to state that the issues surrounding these structures is covered in this report as they have not been mentioned let alone addressed.

Pararaph 7.1.5: We are not sure what this paragraph relates to as it does not seem to be a paragraph in its own right and perhaps should be included with the above paragraph.

7.2 The Council’s Actions

Paragraph 7.2.1: It has not been confirmed whether there were any complaints about the unauthorised structures prior to April 2014 as the Council’s general records on Enforcement queries and actions seem to be incomplete. Mrs Bahcheli states that the Council was aware of the proposal but gave conflicting evidence to the applicants. It is not stated when this request for clarification was made, and it does not appear to have been recorded. Again the verbal

49

evidence of the owner/developer is accepted when evidence from the public is not accepted without proof that goes over and above a general enquiry. Surely, the onus is on the Council to investigate complaints at the time and not wait for over four years before taking action, and putting the onus on the objector to prove that they actually complained.

Paragraph 7.2.2: Once again verbal evidence is accepted from the owners of the caravan park that they requested clarification from the Council on whether or not planning permission was required for the installation of a storage unit on the site. The applicants suggest that they received conflicting information, on whether or not planning permission was required, so therefore one query must have stated that planning permission was required and another that it was not required. Mr and Mrs Guilliard then must have decided to go with the response that was best suited instead of waiting for a written confirmation. If the Guilliards had been told by a planning officer that planning permission was required then they knowingly built the storage unit without the correct permission. The storage unit is built in an area that was previously refused planning permission for the siting of caravans, cars and tents as it would have an adverse effect on the setting from the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’; the AONB and the Country Park. Therefore, it is doubtful that if the applicants had gone through the correct planning procedure that this proposal would have been approved. The building is not small scale, does not make use of an existing building and is not for agricultural use. The area prior to the felling of many trees was concealed, and not on full view to the general public.

The building cannot be classed a ‘Permitted Development’ as it is within ‘Designated Land’. Designated land includes national parks and the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, conservation areas and World Heritage Sites.

The storage building is 15 metres from the wall of the two storey holiday let and is 9½ metres x 6 metres. In national parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and World Heritage Sites the total area to be covered by any outbuilding more than 20 metres from ANY WALL of the house must not exceed 10 square metres to be permitted development. The storage unit is 60 square metres.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/outbuildings/miniguide

Paragraph 7.2.3: The applicant’s agent has confirmed that the storage unit has been in situ for more than four years so therefore will be applying for a ‘Certificate of Lawful Use or Development’. It has been confirmed in writing by the Council that this is acceptable for them without weighing up the evidence for or against approval. The application site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is adjacent to the Old Town Conservation Area where restrictions apply.

‘http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/1app/guidance/guidance_note-lawful_development_certificates.pdf

Lawful Development Certificate are not relevant where breaches of listed building or conservation area controls may be alleged.’

The storage unit also encroaches on the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’.

Paragraph 7.2.4: The recognised reports were made over six months ago and no action has been taken. Is the Council hoping that the more time is left that there is the less chance of taking action against these unauthorised structures. What is the Council waiting for?

50

Paragraph 7.2.5: The previous paragraphs state that the applicant’s agent has confirmed in writing that the storage building has been in situ for more than four years, and that they would be applying for a ‘Certificate of Lawful Development’. This paragraph states that a deadline has been imposed for an application to be received, as there is a risk that the four year period for enforcement action to be taken, expires before the application is determined. The Council has been aware of this storage unit for at least 6 months and has not taken enforcement action.

It is not stipulated what timescale has been imposed for an application for a ‘retrospective’ planning application or a ‘Certificate of Lawful Use or Development’ to be submitted. Please can you confirm what the deadline is and in what form the application will be?

Paragraph 7.2.6: The Council it seems has determined the outcome of the proposed ‘Certificate of Lawful Development’ application before it has been submitted. The Council has not weighed up the potential harm to the AONB or to the adjacent ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’, on which it encroaches, or to the adjacent Country Park. This application has been predetermined. Evidence may be received from the general public stating that the building’s presence had been reported to the Council prior to the four year immunity period expiring.

The storage unit is within a conservation area; it encroaches on a ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ and is positioned where previous planning developments have been refused.

HS/FA/49/173Approved: 12 Apr 1949Applicant: Mrs E M MartinSituation: Rocklands, Rocklands Lane, HastingsDescription of Development: Change of use from School to:

1) Private hotel, recreational club, tea garden and café. (area blue)

2) Camping site for caravans from April to September (inclusive) and part of the land for the parking of unoccupied caravans during the winter months (area red)

3) Youth camp from April to September. (area green)

In pursuance of their powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 - 1954, and all other powers, the Council hereby permits the development described in the Plans and Applications specified above, subject to the following conditions, namely : -

Condition 2: d) No buildings to be erected on the site without the previous consent of the local planning authority

Applicant: Mrs E M MartinSituation: Rocklands, Rocklands Lane, HastingsDescription of Development: Use of land hatched red on deposited plan 49/173/571 for camping site for 6 additional caravans

In pursuance of their powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 - 1954, and all other powers, the Council hereby permits the development described in the Plans and Applications specified above, subject to the following conditions, namely : -

1) No buildings to be erected on the site without the previous consent of the local planning authority.

The reason for the imposition of the conditions is to preserve the amenities of the area.

HS/FA/49/173B/571Approved: 12 Apr 1949Applicant: Mrs E M MartinSituation: Rocklands, Rocklands Lane, HastingsDescription of Development: (b) Use of land hatched green on Plan 49/173/571 for Youth Camps – renewal of permission

In pursuance of their powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 - 1954, and all other powers, the Council hereby permits the development described in the Plans and Applications specified above, subject to the following conditions, namely : -

1) The land shall be used during the months of April to September inclusive only and during the months of October to March no tents or buildings shall remain on the land.

51

2) Only tents for accommodation purposes shall be erected on this land, and the only buildings allowed shall be those suitable and necessary for sanitary purposes.

The reason(s) for the imposition of the said conditions is/are: - To preserve the amenities of the area.

It is stated that the landscaping areas and the ‘Schedule Ancient Monument’ are precluded from the stationing of caravans, cars or tents and no buildings were to be constructed on the site without prior permission from the Local Planning Authority. No buildings to be erected on the site other than those necessary for sanitary purposes. It is evident from the aerial photographs that the storage unit has cut into the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’.

All planning applications relating to the caravan park have the reference number 571 as a suffix and therefore, these conditions are still applicable as they have not been rescinded.

The area marked red denotes the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’. The storage unit encroaches onto the monument site.

Paragraph 7.2.7 Mrs Bahcheli has based her decision on personal opinion and has not looked at previous evidence and planning permissions concerning the caravan park. It is her opinion that the storage unit is not harmful to the character of the site or the amenity of the area.

Planning conditions were attached to the planning approvals to:

1) To protect the amenities of the site and the neighbouring area.2) To protect the scheduled Ancient Monument from possible danger.

The storage unit encroaches on and cuts into the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’, Iron Age Cliff Castle and Site of St George's Churchyard on East Hill, Hastings, and affects the amenities of the site and the neighbouring area. The decision as to the future of this unauthorised structure has been predetermined without public consultation using processes that go against government guidelines.

Paragraph 7.2.8: The application to be submitted is for a ‘retrospective’ planning application to regularise the ‘as built’ building. The solar panels are not part of the ‘as built’ building they are situated on an adjacent site that is partially within the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’. Two of the original solar panels that were located within the garden area of ‘Rockland House’ have been relocated to the roof of the six holiday flats with penthouse suite. These panels were

52

removed to accommodate an access road to the new property. The solar panels on the roof of the holiday flats do not have the benefit of planning permission.

To get the maximum sunlight the solar panels will have to be mounted on an A frame and be south-facing. This will make the height of the building even higher and will have a further detrimental effect on the setting from the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ and the Country Park. The two storey holiday let is in an exposed position on the East Hill without sufficient tree cover. There is the added concern of wind damage, water seepage or structural issues.

Paragraph 7.2.9: The solar panels, to work affectively in the United Kingdom, need to be 30 degrees from the horizontal to be affective. Therefore, they will not be either discrete or invisible from the surrounding area and will further affect the setting from the Country Park and the ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’

Paragraph 7.2.10: If the solar panels are to be roof-mounted and part of the ‘retrospective’ planning application to regularise the unauthorised holiday let then they cannot be considered on their own individual merits. It will need to be determined whether a further increase into the height of the property would be detrimental to the surrounding area. The two storey holiday let is already out of keeping with the surrounding area and has an urban feel in a countryside location, adding solar panel to the roof will increase the visibility from the surrounding areas.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/solarnd

‘Solar panels mounted on a non-domestic buildingAll the following conditions must be observed:

Panels should be sited, so far as is practicable, to minimise the effect on the external appearance of the building and the amenity of the area.

When no longer needed for microgeneration panels should be removed as soon as reasonably practicable.

All the following limits must be met:

Solar panels installed on a wall or a pitched roof should project no more than 200mm from the wall surface or roof slope.

Where panels are installed on a flat roof the highest part of the equipment should not be more than one metre above the highest part of the roof (excluding the chimney).

Equipment mounted on a roof must not be within one metre of the external edge of the roof. Equipment mounted on a wall must not be within one metre of a junction of that wall with another wall or with

the roof of the building. The panels must not be installed on a listed building or on a building that is within the grounds of a listed

building. The panels must not be installed on a site designated as a scheduled monument. If the building is on designated land* the equipment must not be installed on a wall or a roof slope which fronts a

highway.

* Designated land includes national parks and the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, conservation areas and World Heritage Site.

Solar Panels

Planning Permission

In many cases installing solar panels on domestic land is likely to be considered 'permitted development' with no need to apply to the council for planning permission. There are, however, important limits and conditions which must be met to benefit from the permitted development rights (see below).

You may wish to discuss with the local planning authority for your area whether all of the limits and conditions will be met.

Solar panels mounted on a house or on a building within the grounds of a house

All the following conditions must be observed:

53

Panels on a building should be sited, so far as is practicable, to minimise the effect on the external appearance of the building and the amenity of the area.

When no longer needed for microgeneration panels should be removed as soon as reasonably practicable.

All the following limits must be met:

Panels should not be installed above the highest part of the roof (excluding the chimney) and should project no more than 200mm from the roof slope or wall surface.

The panels must not be installed on a building that is within the grounds of a listed building. The panels must not be installed on a site designated as a scheduled monument. Wall mounted only - if your property is in a conservation area, or in a World Heritage Site, panels must not be

fitted to a wall which fronts a highway.

Standalone solar panels installations (panels not on a building)

All the following conditions must be observed:

Panels on a building should be sited, so far as is practicable, to minimise the effect on the amenity of the area. When no longer needed for microgeneration panels should be removed as soon as reasonably practicable.

All the following limits must be met:

Only the first stand alone solar installation will be permitted development. Further installations will require planning permission.

No part of the installation should be higher than four metres The installation should be at least 5m from the boundary of the property The size of the array should be no more that 9 square metres or 3m wide by 3m deep Panels should not be installed within boundary of a listed building or a scheduled monument. if your property is in a conservation area, or in a World Heritage Site, no part of the solar installation should be

nearer to any highway bounding the house than the part of the house that is nearest to that highway.’

Paragraph 7.2.11: Mrs Bahcheli believes that the Council ignoring the local residents’ concerns over the unauthorised buildings was the best action to take. Obviously, not giving answers to the local residents’ concerns is considered appropriate, and no action taken, justified. It appears as if verbal agreements between the applicant and the Council that have suddenly come to light are being used as a lever in approving the unauthorised structures without going through the correct procedures. There is no evidence of these verbal agreements. Conflicting evidence means that two different answers were given – the applicant did not seek clarification and built the unit without prior permission being granted.

8 The Loss of Trees on Rocklands Site

We believe that the core issue here is whether the Council gave authorisation to remove trees. This vital fact has been kept from us until the release of this report. This could explain the Council’s lack of Enforcement action taken. They have chosen to ignore evidence and have set almost impossible levels of proof in order to cover themselves from this mistake. Couple this with the Country Park Management Team’s failure to notice any unauthorised activity, Environment’s failure to inspect the site and the handling of unauthorised tree removal it all becomes clear why no action against these breaches have been taken. The Council has been complicit from day one and have tried a variety of strategies to cover themselves. Denial, lack of evidence, request for further evidence, ignoring the proof on the grounds that it would not satisfy a Court of Law, etc.

Unfortunately, this report seems to do the same thing. The evidence has not been reviewed and an opinion has been formed without regard to the evidence. Mrs Bahcheli is not qualified to comment on tree removal evidence or aerial photographs.

8.1 Background

Paragraph 8.1.1: Mrs Bahcheli obviously has not looked at the submitted evidence concerning tree removal as she states that she has heard that an estimate of up to 50 trees were removed. The data provided by the Campaigners goes into explicit detail.

Paragraph 8.1.2: It is agreed with Mrs Bahcheli’s analysis. The conflicting evidence on tree removal is new to us and was not confirmed until this report was released. The Campaigners were asked to supply enough evidence on tree

54

removal on the site that would satisfy a Court of Law but this evidence has been disregarded as being insufficient. The owners of the caravan site can state that conflicting information was given by the Council sometime in 2010 and that is accepted as fact. The owners of the caravan park did not seek clarification on which statement was correct and went with the information that best suited their needs.

8.2 Planning History

Paragraph 8.2.1: As stated previously the ‘Tree Preservation Order’ is too general and does not cover specific trees. It has been stated by Mrs Bahcheli that enforcement action cannot be taken as there has been insufficient evidence provided by the Campaigners that would stand up in Court. It is stated that in order for the Council to take action that is defendable at appeal, or in the magistrate’s court, that the onus is on the Campaigners to provide the following information:

Which trees had been removed What species are they and where did they stand What condition a tree is in; whether it was healthy or dead/dying or dangerous When it was removed By whom

The planning conditions quoted in Mrs Bahcheli’s report do not specify what the species are, or that they can be removed without prior permission if they are dead, dying or dangerous. The conditions specify that ‘No trees shall be lopped, topped or felled without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority’. There is a fault within the planning system that allows unenforceable conditions to be imposed on planning approvals in order for them to be approved.

Mrs Bahcheli has stated that it is doubtful whether planning conditions imposed in 1978 and earlier would stand up to current legislations. The wording on Condition 5, attached to planning approval HS/FA/12/00952 did not protect the trees and hedgerows that were removed prior to development. The submitted plans did not stipulate what trees were to be retained, and what species they were or where they were located on the site. The submitted drawings indicated existing trees that were on the site, but their presence on the drawings does not confirm actual trees, as apparently they are only indicative of the trees on the site. The photographs submitted with the planning application cannot be relied on even though they were used as evidence in the decision making process, and aerial photographs could be taken at different times of year when the tree trunk disappears as well as the leaves.

HS/FA/58/48/571Approved: 11 Feb 1958Applicant: Mr E G Tierney, Croft View, HastingsSituation: Rocklands, Rocklands Lane, HastingsDescription of Development: Extension of caravan site to accommodate a total of 50 caravans

1) All caravans to be sited on the north-west side of the existing belt of trees across the site and no tree shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority.

HS/FA/60/357/571Approved: 29 Apr 1960Applicant: Mr E G TierneySituation: Rocklands, Rocklands Lane, HastingsDescription of Development: Use of Caravan Site to accommodate 22 additional caravans (72 in all)

In pursuance of their powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 - 1954, and all other powers, the Council hereby permits the development described in the Plans and Applications specified above, subject to the following conditions, namely : -

1) All caravans to be sited on the north-west side of the existing belt of trees across the site and no tree shall be removed without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority.

HS/FA/78/485/571Approved: 4 Apr 1979Applicant: G & A AingeSituation: Rocklands, Rocklands Lane, HastingsDescription of Development: Siting of ten additional caravans.

55

In pursuance of their powers under the Town and Country Planning Acts, and all other powers, the Council hereby permits the development described in the Plans and Applications specified above, subject to the following condition(s) :-

4) No trees on the site shall be lopped, topped or felled without the prior written consent of the District Planning Authority.

8) Within two months of the date of grant of planning permission as scheme of landscaping and tree planting for the site shall be submitted for the approval of the District Planning Authority and any such scheme as may be approved by the District Planning Authority shall be implemented within six months of such grant or such further amended periods as my subsequently be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority and thereafter maintained.

A landscaping scheme was requested with planning approval HS/FA/78/485/571. Presumably this tree replanting scheme was discharged as the applicants had complied to the terms of the conditions attached to the planning permission, so therefore there should be written documentation held within the files that show the details of when this replanting scheme was implemented and what type of tree was planted.

The ‘Tree Preservation Order’ in its current form will not protect the remaining trees within the caravan park as it is not tree specific. The ‘TPO’ has been laid out to protect bands of trees within the caravan park; each individual tree, its species and it position within the caravan park are not recorded on the documentation. The ‘TPO’ does not stipulate the condition of the tree and whether it was healthy when the ‘TPO’ was imposed. It seems as if the caravan park is within a conservation area when it suits, but is not within a conservation area when it does not suit.

A planning application for tree removal has been submitted to the planning department to remove trees on the site as they are considered by the owner of the caravan park to be sick. No supporting evidence has been supplied with this application and it now transpires that the 14 spruce trees that were planted in the late 1940s, when planning permission was first granted for the site, are to be removed as they are not covered by a ‘Tree Preservation Order’. This band of trees is the band that separates the licensed part of the site and the amenity area – All caravans to be sited on the north-west side of the existing belt of trees across the site…

‘Permitted Development Rights’ are not applicable in a conservation area and a ‘Certificate of Lawful Development or Use’ is not appropriate where conservation rules apply. Therefore, according to the Council, the caravan park is not within a conservation area, as it is proposed to award a ‘CLU’ for the storage building as it is stated by the applicants that the unit has been ‘in situ’ for more than four years – conditions attached to previous planning approvals state that no buildings are to be installed without prior permission from the Local Planning Authority. Caravans have been installed on the lower slopes without planning permission and road and car parking facilities have been provided to serve them. It is stated by the planning department that the unauthorised structures are allowable under ‘Permitted Development Rights’ even though there has been a history of planning refusals for the siting of caravans, cars and tents. In this case it is stated that the caravan park is not within a conservation area.

Paragraph 8.2.3: Caravans, cars and tents were precluded within the amenity area and as this condition attached to planning permission HS/FA/78/485/571 still stands and has not been rescinded:

HS/FA/78/485/571Approved: 4 Apr 1979Applicant: G & A AingeSituation: Rocklands, Rocklands Lane, HastingsDescription of Development: Siting of ten additional caravans.

In pursuance of their powers under the Town and Country Planning Acts, and all other powers, the Council hereby permits the development described in the Plans and Applications specified above, subject to the following condition(s) :-

7) The play and amenity area referred to in Condition 3 will not be used at any time for the stationing of caravans or cars or the pitching of tents.

The area on the southern end of the caravan park is where the eight unauthorised caravans were sited prior to the landslide. This is the area where a tree replanting and landscaping scheme was requested and where caravans, cars and tents are forbidden. These unauthorised caravans were sited on a manmade terrace without any retaining structures installed, and no geotechnical surveys into the stability of the slope were undertaken prior to the terracing being formed. Drawings submitted with the geotechnical survey compiled by Coffey Geotechnics Limited show that the landslide extends from beneath the hard standing installed to accommodate the eight unauthorised caravans.

56

The trees planted within the amenity area were removed to accommodate these additional caravans as there was insufficient space for caravans within the licenced area of the caravan park. The sizes of caravans have increased and the caravan park owners could not accommodate all of the 82 caravans they had permission for. The Environmental Health report, compiled by RH Environmental, confirms that some of the caravans are too close together, and therefore, the number of caravans on their site licence needs to be reduced. RH Environments thought that there was planning permission for the eight unauthorised caravans and based their findings on the caravans being lawful. The authors of the report were furnished incorrect details from the Council who gave a drawing that showed electrical instalments; it was not the approved caravan site plan.

It is now thought that the owners of the caravan park will request the removal of more trees to accommodate their misplaced caravans. There is no evidence provided to show that the trees are sick or are dangerously close to the existing caravans. Aerial photographs taken only two weeks ago show the trees to be healthy and thriving.

Paragraph 8.2.4: It is stated that the conditions attached to the planning approvals still stand and were intended to protect the important setting of the caravan park in this sensitive location. This contradicts other statements made within the report that there is insufficient evidence of tree removal to be able to make enforcement action stand. All planning applications in sensitive areas should therefore have a tree survey performed prior to the planning application being verified. Conditions attached to planning permissions should have a tree replanting scheme that stipulates types of species and plans that show the actual positioning of the trees on the site, post development. Conditions should only be used as a lever to pass controversial planning applications, if they can be enforced if breached. There is no follow up once planning permission is granted and reliance on reporting breaches of conditions is left to the general public who are fobbed off with excuses or vilified for daring to bring breaches of conditions to the Council’s attention.

Planning conditions are enforceable unless they have been discharged. The planning conditions attached to the various planning approvals have not been rescinded so are therefore, still applicable.

Paragraph 8.3.1: Mrs Bahcheli uses words like ‘appears’ and ‘suggest’ as if the reports cannot be qualified. The Council responded to the residents who complained by saying that it was perfectly acceptable to remove trees and gave reasons why no action could be taken against the unauthorised tree removal. It has never been suggested that the residents were lying when they reported the breaches, the reports to the public were noted so cannot be denied. It is the fault of the Council for not investigating at the time and for not taking action.

Paragraph 8.3.2: It is stated that a member of the public contacted the Council on 29 April 2010 and asked whether works on trees could be undertaken. He was told that no ‘Tree Preservation Orders’ were in place, and that the caravan park was not within a conservation area, so there were no restrictions on tree removal. It is stated that the applicants contacted the Council, and were given the same advice. There is no record of this conversation taking place, no date given and no indication on what advice was given. This evidence is accepted as it was confirmed, four years later by the applicant’s agent. Once again the applicant’s unsubstantiated evidence is taken as being fact without additional written evidence. It has not been explained why the complaints were not followed up, or whether a site visit was performed to ascertain whether breaches had occurred. It has not been confirmed who the reporting officer was that gave incorrect advice. Site visits were performed four years after the complaints were made, and it is now reported that there is no evidence of tree removal on the site. It is stated on the Council’s Enforcement website that all reports are investigated and confirmed in writing. The advice given by the Enforcement department allowed unauthorised works on the caravan site to continue and because of this the breaches continued unchecked. Now it is deemed that the breach is unenforceable. Once again the Council is guilty of maladministration.

It is stated that the owners of the caravan park were informed by the Council that tree removal was acceptable but it ‘appears’ that they stated, when asked, that they only removed dead and dying trees from the site. The blanket removal of swathes of trees was not permitted and neither was their removal to accommodate additional unauthorised caravans.

A ‘FOI’ request made by a member of the public states ‘No one at Hastings Borough Council authorised the removal of any trees at Rocklands Caravan Park therefore we do not hold any authorisation letters.’

Paragraph 8.3.3: Another error that seems to favour the developer. Members of the public and our local MP were fobbed off with excuses, which were confirmed in letters without investigating the history of the site. Complaints from 2010 should have been investigated before being dismissed.

This ‘appears’ to suggest that someone is not being honest whether it be the Council or the owners of the caravan park.

Paragraph 8.3.4: Mrs Bahcheli seems to say that she thinks that there is merit in the argument that the Council does not listen to the general public, and that they have to go over and above what should be necessary, even contacting

57

their local MP to be heard. This is not a new phenomenon that is relevant to just Rocklands and something that could be addressed and included as a recommendation. The Council does not listen to local residents in any capacity, and after 6 months of negotiations with the Council, and in spite of numerous letters and ‘bundles’ of evidence, telephone calls and meetings with the Council we have not made ourselves heard on any issue.

Future Action available to the Council

Paragraph 8.4.1: There has been a breach in planning conditions, the evidence is overwhelming. The breach is harmful as it has destroyed the visual amenity of Ecclesbourne Glen and is a likely contributing factor to the subsequent land slide that happened in spring this year. It is difficult to comprehend why such fundamental questions are being asked.

Paragraph 8.4.2: The only dispute on tree removal is with the Council as the local residents know that the trees have been removed to accommodate more unauthorised caravans, as there is insufficient room within the licenced area of the caravan park to accommodate 82 caravans. The applicants have encroached on previously protected areas to maximise their profits by utilising all vacant areas, whether protected or not, for the use of static owner occupied caravans. It has been stated on numerous occasions that there is no evidence of tree removals within the caravan park and that the aerial photographs could have been taken at different times of the year. This may account for loss of foliage but it does not account for the actual tree frame. A manmade terrace was installed to accommodate eight unauthorised caravans in an area that was designated as an amenity area and children’s play area. The area in front of these unauthorised caravans had been cleared with the view of installing further caravans that could not be accommodated within the licenced area. The applicants state that this area was laid to grass but the aerial photographs shows dense tree and hedge covering. It is stated that the Council’s Arboricultural Officer has expressed doubt on whether trees have been removed, and found no evidence of tree removal on site visits. It is not stated whether Mrs Bacheli interview Mr Wilkins to asked for his opinion or whether she was relying on third party evidence.

It is stated that no evidence of tree removal was found following letters of complaint, but it was stated previously that reports of tree removal were dismissed as there was not a ‘Tree Preservation Order’ in place and it was stated that the caravan park was not within a conservation area. There was no suggestion that site visits were performed following complaints. The reports of tree removal were over a number of years, and by the time that the Council had admitted that they had made a mistake with the advice given, the evidence has been removed. Trees were removed for the unauthorised caravan siting, and the unauthorised hard standing and roads, it is hardly likely that they would leave the tree stumps in situ.

The Google Earth photographs are all date stamped as being taken in the summer, has Mr Wilkins even looked at them? They compare the scene at the same season over many years. There are also a large number of tree photos from Bing and others, some were taken from within the files at Aquila House that clearly show the specimens to be trees and not bushes. In addition there is extensive evidence from the ‘National Tree Database’ which gives location, height and crown size of trees. Too many trees have been felled to be explained away as being sick, damaged or affected by exposure. The whole of the southern slopes have been cleared of trees; caravans have been sited where the trees used to be. This area was designated as an amenity and landscape area that was to be precluded from the siting of caravans, cars and tents. Photographs have been submitted that show stumps, which have been pointed out to planning officers. Our evidence has been disregarded as no one has bothered to take the time to read it. It has to be questioned why this evidence was requested when it was never intended to be used as evidence.

The Campaigners have requested a meeting with Mr Wilkins to present out evidence and to discuss the issues that have arisen from unauthorised tree removal on the site. There are also concerns that certain trees have not been protected in spite of reassurances from the Leader of the Council, Jeremy Birch, and the Head of Regeneration, Simon Hubbard that all trees on Rocklands are covered under the ‘Tree Preservation Order’ that was imposed earlier this year. It is stated within Mrs Bahcheli’s report that all trees within Rocklands Caravan Park have been protected by a ‘TPO’ – this is obviously not the case, and once again the Campaign Group and the general public has been misled.

Paragraph 8.4.3: The applicants should have contacted the Council for confirmation prior to removing trees as stipulated in the conditions imposed on their planning permissions. The applicant has only mentioned one tree that was removed due to being dead, that does not account for the other 49 or more trees that were felled on the site over a number of years. The owners of the site now state that they only removed dead or dangerous trees, this information conflicts with earlier evidence presented that only bushes were removed. Again there is conflicting evidence that cannot be substantiated. It is ‘fortuitous’ that the dead and dangerous trees could be removed to accommodate unauthorised caravans, terracing, road and car parks and to afford the holiday makers a better view of the sea. The owners admitted to felling healthy trees that did not fall within the dead or dangerous category. Is any burden of proof required from Rocklands for any of their mutually contradictory statements?

58

Paragraph 8.4.4: It is stated that the developer’s agent, Mr Cos Polito, Enforcement reference ENF/14/00776, dated 9 September 2014, that he will consider the matter once the files have been reviewed and that he intends examining the validity of the conditions in detail. The applicant did not challenge the conditions imposed on the relevant planning permissions attached to the planning permissions at the time, and the planning conditions have not been rescinded. Is the developer’s agent suggesting he is going to challenge all of the conditions attached to the planning permissions or only those that relate to the remaining trees on the site? If that is the case then the wording on the ‘Tree Preservation Order’ should be tighter so that there is no doubt as to what the actual trees are, where they stand and what condition they were in when the ‘TPO’ was imposed. The applicants could find that the conditions are still relevant, and that they have breached more than just the conditions imposed that protected the trees within the caravan park.

There should also be tighter restriction imposed on the applicant’s site licence as that is obviously out of date and does not reflect what is actually happening within the caravan park. There are too many caravans for the areas that have the benefit of a site licence, and the site has not been checked by the Council for 20 years. There is no up to date plan of the caravan park and the applicant has been moving caravans without prior permission from the Council. They have also installed caravans outside of their licenced area, and have moved the caravans closer together, so that they do not conform to the conditions attached to the licence. It is stated that no site plan exists, or has ever existing for the caravan site.

The owners of Rocklands have been breaching conditions imposed on their planning permissions since 2004 and have not thought of challenging the validly of the conditions. It now appears as if they will be challenging the conditions to see if they were right to breach them.

A condition must not be used to control matters that are subject to specific control elsewhere in planning legislation (for example, advertisement control, listed building consents, or tree preservation).

Therefore, in this case it would be more appropriate to ensure that all trees on the site are covered under a ‘Tree Preservation Order’ so that there is no doubt in what is actually required to protect all of the trees on the site.

Paragraph 8.4.5: A letter to enforcement dated 15 May 2014; ENF/14/00246 states that in 2010 Mr and Mrs Guiliard asked whether they could top trees as they were getting too tall. Therefore, it was understood by Mr and Mrs Guilliard that permission had to be asked to lop, top or fell trees within the caravan park. It is stated by the applicants agent that they were told that no consents were required, and therefore did not realise that they had breached the 1978 planning permission. It is stated on the enforcement website than all calls to enforcement are recorded and that queries are responded to in writing. Therefore, there should be documentation that records this call and the response given. The letter is dated 2014 so therefore cannot be used as evidence for something that was alleged to have happened in 2010. The landslide occurred in 2014 so would not have been responsible for the loss of tree in 2010.

Paragraph 8.4.6: The National Planning Policy Framework was introduced on 27 March 2012 so would not have been relevant in 1978. The conditions attached to the planning permissions have not been rescinded so therefore, still stand. Tree removal was first reported to the Council in 2010 so therefore, once again this guideline is not relevant. If it is stated that the conditions imposed in 1978 would not stand the test of time then all trees on the site should be the subject of a ‘TPO’ which is applicable in current legislations.

If the conditions imposed do not meet today’s standards and conditions written in 1978 would fail current tests then planning approvals that are imposed after 27 March 2012 should meet the six tests in paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

‘How does the Local Planning Authority ensure that the six tests in paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework have been met?

Whether it is appropriate for the Local Planning Authority to impose a condition on a grant of planning permission will depend on the specifics of the case. Conditions should help to deliver development plan policy and accord with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, including satisfying the six tests for conditions.

The six tests must all be satisfied each time a decision to grant planning permission subject to conditions is made. The tests are set out below, alongside key considerations:

Necessary

Will it be appropriate to refuse planning permission with the requirements imposed by the condition?

A condition must not be imposed unless there is a definite planning reason for it, ie it is needed to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

59

If a condition is wider in scope than is necessary to achieve the desired objective it will fail the test of necessity.

Relevant to Planning

Does the condition relate to planning objectives and is it within the scope of the permission to which it is attached?

A condition must not be used to control matters that are subject to specific control elsewhere in planning legislation (for example, advertisement control, listed building consents, or tree preservation

Specific controls outside planning legislation may provide an alternative means of managing certain matters (for example works on public highways often require highway’s consent).

Relevant to the Development to be Permitted

Does the condition fairly and reasonably relate to the development to be permitted?

It is not sufficient that a condition is related to planning objectives: it must also be justified by the nature and impact of the development permitted.

A condition cannot be imposed in order to remedy a pre-existing problem or issue not created by the proposed development.

Enforceable

Would it be practicably possible to enforce the condition?

Unenforceable conditions include those for which it would, in practice, be impossible to detect a contravention or remedy any breach of the condition, or those concerned with matters over which the applicant has not control.

Precise

Is the condition written in a way that makes it clear to the applicant and others what must be done to comply with it?

Poorly worded conditions are those that do not clearly state what is required and when it must not be used.

Reasonable in all other aspects

Is the condition reasonable?

Conditions which place unjustifiable and disproportionate burdens on an applicant will fail the test of reasonableness.

Unreasonable conditions cannot be used to make a development that is unacceptable in planning terms acceptable.

Mrs Bahcheli has suggested that ‘suitably worded conditions’ are imposed in order to approve the ‘retrospective’ planning application that is due for resubmission. This goes against the ‘Relevant to the development to be permitted’ test: ‘A condition cannot be imposed in order to remedy a pre-existing problem or issue not created by the proposed development’. The suggested conditions attached to planning application: HS/FA/14/00406 were imposed to remedy the fact that tree and hedge screening had been removed prior to development; this is a pre-existing problem that there is insufficient screening. The issue was created by the proposed development as the tree and hedge screening has been removed to accommodate a larger building that has been realigned, but can a condition be used to make an unacceptable development in planning terms acceptable. How is this to be enforced if the condition is breached?

Suspected site stability can only be addressed by the applicants submitting sufficient evidence prior to development starting. Land stability within the caravan park is a pre-existing problem, and a problem not created by the proposed development. The groundwork for the development has already been completed without the necessary geotechnical surveys being undertaken prior to construction starting. How is a condition imposed in respect of site stability to be imposed after the event?

Paragraph 8.4.7: This is another attempt, aided by Mrs Bahcheli, to move the goal posts so that further excuses can be made so that they can justify not taking enforcement action when the reports of breaches in planning conditions were first reported to the Council. Reports of tree removal were made in 2010, and possibly earlier, but the reports

60

were not action upon as the Enforcement Officer did not bother to check whether there were pre-existing conditions attached to either the planning permissions or the site licences. The ‘Save Ecclebourne Glen Campaign Group’ was not asked to provide specific species or they would have done. There was a list of tree species reported to the Council.

1. Griselinia littoralis, commonly known as Kapuka or New Zealand broadleaf2. Blackthorn3. Oak4. Hazel5. Wild Dog Rose6. Willow7. Holm Oak8. Holly – there is evidence of holly growing, but was not thriving in the area of the new development

Mr James in his ‘Heritage Statement’ after assessing all of the evidence submitted with the proposed two storey holiday let stated that ‘The existing building is not visible from most of the SAM (including St George’s Churchyard and almost the entire rampart) due either to the topography of the hill or to the presence of thick scrub woodland on the rampart. Although most of this is deciduous, the rampart immediately adjacent to the existing building is crowned by dense mature holly trees – these are not deciduous, and provide a visual screen in all seasons (Plate 3). This screen is effective even from the top of the rampart next to the building.

The condition attached to the planning approval in 1978 in respect of the trees on the site is still relevant today as the caravan is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and might had been refused had the condition not been imposed. The site is also adjacent to a SSSI and SAC site. The condition was imposed to preserve the amenity of the area and ‘To enhance the appearance of this prominent site which overlooks an area of High Landscape Value’. Is Mrs Bahcheli stating that protecting the views from the ‘SAM’, Country Park and Ecclesbourne Glen are not applicable now, or that the appearance of the site which overlooks an area of High Landscape Value is not to be considered, or that an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty does not have the same worth, or need protecting, as it did in 1978? The conditions attached to the 1978 permission were relevant in 1990 when the Inspector for the Appeal dismissed an appeal for the siting of more caravans.

Paragraph 8.4.8: What is the source of evidence requirements as they appear very, very strict? It appears as if the burden of proof is unreasonably high compared to other criminal cases.

Which trees – photographs and tree database can show which trees and where. Species can be determined from photographs. We are not sure what the relevance of species is as we know

the position, crown and height from the tree database. Condition can only be assessed from the last photograph. A reasonable view is that not all trees removed could

have been dead or dangerous. When can only be determined within the date range. Whom? We can assume that it was the owners of the caravan park or they would be taking out their own

criminal investigations on trespass and wilful damage.

Paragraph 8.4.9: Mrs Bahcheli is not a tree specialist and is not qualified to dismiss our evidence without expert opinion. Was a legal opinion taken on the validity of the submitted evidence or was the evidence dismissed without further legal clarification?

Paragraph 8.4.10: The advice given to the owners of the caravan site has not been confirmed and it has not been stipulated what advice was given and in what form it was given. The evidence supplied by the owners is conflicting and unclear and cannot be confirmed.

Paragraph 8.4.11: Mrs Bahcheli has concluded that nothing can be done about the tree loss as enforcement action would be difficult to defend at appeal. It is not understood why further evidence was required from the Campaigners other than that was another way in which they could be fobbed off, giving them unachievable tasks in the hope that they would go away and leave the Council alone. Trees were reported as being removed prior to the 2010 blanket explanation so the evidence provided by the Campaigners can be used. The Council has admitted gross maladministration in ignoring the general public’s concerns and fobbing them off with excuses. They have also admitted that they gave conflicting evidence to the owners of the caravan park that led them to remove over 50 trees on the site. Therefore, the Council should be responsible for replacing each and every tree on a one for one, like for like, basis.

Paragraph 8.4.12: Mrs Bahcheli is relying on a ‘Tree Preservation Order’, which by her own admission is not worth the paper it is written on as the details within the order would not be sufficient to defend at appeal and could be challenged at the High Court if not properly made. Not all of the trees are protected on the site and there are bands of

61

trees that do not stipulate species, height, position and conditions which apparently are the tests that need to be satisfied to prove breaches of conditions.

The ‘TPO’ will not resurrect the dead, it is a welcome move but not sufficient to stop further destruction of the trees on the site. If complaints had been actioned and a ‘TPO’ imposed sooner we might not now be faced with the situation we find ourselves to be in. We are not convinced that a ‘TPO’ will be sufficient to protect the remaining trees and would require the ‘TPO’ to include all trees on the site and have their individual descriptions noted.

Mrs Bahcheli states that ‘The Council has now imposed a Tree Preservation Order’ on the whole site. This is an appropriate action and will ensure that all trees are protected in the future…’ This statement is incorrect in light of the planning application: HS/TP/14/00845 that has been amended, as some trees ‘appear’ to not be protected. Fourteen Spruce trees, a Chestnut and a Tree of Heaven have been excluded from the ‘TPO’ which goes against the Council and Mrs Bahcheli’s assurance that the whole site is protected.

Paragraph 8.4.13: The Council has been asking the applicants for a tree replanting scheme for the best part of six months and none have been received. Obviously, a tree replanting scheme would not be appropriate on the southern slope until the condition of the land has been addressed and an assessment into the slope’s stability confirmed. We are not sure what Mrs Bahcheli is saying when she states ‘I don’t believe enforcement proceedings would not help in this matter’. Is she stating that she does not feel that enforcement action is appropriate in this instance or that she thinks that enforcement action will help as the applicants goodwill cannot be relied upon? What exactly is the best way forward?

Paragraph 8.4.14: There is nothing to say that the reporting officers are junior and need retraining. Mrs Collins was the case officer for the applications for the six flats with penthouse suite in 2004. The senior officers and the Development Control Manager should ensure that the reporting officer’s cases are handled correctly, as ultimately they are the officers in charge. Most of the files relating to previous applications have either been archived or destroyed. The ‘Decision Notice’ for planning approvals on older cases is the only document shown on the planning website.

Retraining staff will not address all of the issues that have been noted within this report. There is no mention of procedural changes, no mention of improving communications within departments. No mention of failure to trigger ‘TPO’ enquiries. The problem lies within the culture of planning, its complacency, its treatment of the general public and serious procedural and management problems.

Training for the junior staff is not the issue as they are supervised at a senior level so the retraining exercise should cover the whole department. Incorrect responses have been received from senior members of the planning department, so the blame cannot be laid solely at the door of the junior officers. Officers within the planning department, by their own admission, have been guilty of gross maladministration and the general public need to know that the seriousness of these mistakes is addressed so that they do not happen again in the future.

There is nothing within this report that would lead us to believe that any significant changes will be made and that once this report, and its recommendations, is ratified that it will be business as usual.

Paragraph 9.1: This paragraph indicates that the report is incomplete and that further work is required before the report is published in full. It has been stated that the recommendations in this report will be submitted for approval in the December Cabinet meeting. It is our opinion that the list of issues is still incomplete and that there are further issues on the site that need addressing such as unauthorised caravans, car parks, road extensions and drainage issues.

Conclusions: We have searched Mrs Bahcheli’s report and the word recommendations is mentioned 10 times within a 39 page document and out of those 10 sentences that contain the word recommend not one is an actual recommendation that could be passed for approval in a Cabinet Meeting. Mrs Bahcheli makes suggestions on how things can improve within the planning process, and points out historical errors made but does not expand on her findings and does not give details on how things could improve. There are no specific recommendations and all errors or omissions are dismissed as being irrelevant as they were perceived not to have affected the final outcome. The comments made are suggestions rather than recommendations:

The Council:- May consider It would be Helpful … Should have been debated Higher Level of Information Supplied Could consider

62

These statements are too vague and are not actual recommendations that are likely to be imposed.

The members of ‘Save Ecclesbourne Glen Campaign Group’ have reviewed this document and our separate comments have been compiled into this document that expresses the views of the team.

63