Option 1: A single policy

Object

Representation ID: 2227

Received: 03/02/2012

The policy is not the problem, it is the way it is policed. If developers are left to make remedial suggestions there is no expert in HBC who can check the viability of the proposed solution. Perhaps HBC should have a list of approved consultants who can assess or even design solutions. Often local residents are unsure of the independence of those providing solutions.

Object

Representation ID: 2233

Received: 08/02/2012

This conditon has been watered down in favour of the developer Previously planning policy DG21 stated that planning consent on unstable ground would ONLY be given once the stability issues had been resolved. The word ONLY has for some reason now been deleted. WHY???

Object

Representation ID: 2266

Received: 20/02/2012

There needs to be a requirement that whenever land stability issues apply to a proposed development site,the planning department highlight this to the planning committee.All too often despite objectors letters raising this issue, nothing is mentioned within officer's reports. Thus the planning committee is totally unaware of the situation.This can be seen with the recent Market Street and Hornbeam Heights planning applications. Just two of many examples.

Object

Representation ID: 2393

Received: 02/04/2012

DEFINITELY object to ANY building on potentially unstable ground. I feel that developers are not to be trusted to carry out their responsibilities (see e.g. Undercliff fiasco) and that Planning Committee members can be too easily misled into granting permission to build, on the promise of dubious assurances from developers...and/or the threat of an appeal to the national Planning Inspectorate if an application is turned down for ground instability reasons.

Object

Representation ID: 2510

Received: 25/04/2012

This single policy in my opinion does not take into consideration individual planning applications and has conveniently lumped together all sites that have known, and potentially known, land stability issues into one scenario that can be addressed and approved with a 'suitably worded condition'. It is a known fact that because of the Hawthorn Road appeal, that was perceived to have been lost by the council, any applications that have land stability issues will be approved to avoid the cost of an appeal.

Object

Representation ID: 2511

Received: 25/04/2012

I object to this abridged version of policy DG21. The inclusion of a word, and a short paragraph, is not going to make that much different to the length of the written policy but will make a big different to how that policy is perceived and interpreted. Without it there is a danger that no planning application, no matter how controversial, will be approved. If the evidence concerning site stability was included at the application stage, and the evidence tested, then there would be little danger that the application would be refused.

Object

Representation ID: 2512

Received: 25/04/2012

My perspective of this is that the new wording means that the applicant does not have to provide convincing evidence prior to the application being submitted and can rely on a 'suitably worded condition' being added at the planning committee meeting stage. There is a danger, as in a recently approved application in Market Street, that the policy will be overlooked; the objectors were given misleading information on who was responsible for land stability issues. '... for the ease of use by applicants' is a phrase that shows where the planning department's loyalty lays.

Object

Representation ID: 2516

Received: 25/04/2012

If you look at Planning Policy DG21 from the Hastings Local Plan 2004 you will see that an abridged version of this policy has been submitted as a suggestion under the single policy category in the Hastings Local Plan - Development Management Plan Consultation Document. The suggested wording for the single policy is remarkably like the one suggested as a condition, and used as bargaining tool, to pass controversial planning applications with land stability issues rather than risk it being refused and going to appeal.

Support

Representation ID: 2928

Received: 24/04/2012

I support the single policy option and proposed wording.

Support

Representation ID: 3098

Received: 27/04/2012

Support Option I BUT clause a] should require the developer to show a proposed schedule of appropriate measures before the application is validated by the Planning department for determination. This should apply not only to the site itself but also to potentially affected neighbouring properties

Comment

Representation ID: 3254

Received: 24/04/2012

We support the need for the adequate assessment of development sites as outlined in Option 1, part b of your proposed wording. Planning applications on sites known or suspected to be contaminated (for example through previous or historical uses) must be submitted with suitable ground investigation reports. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advocates this approach (NPPF, paragraph 121, point 3).

Where sites require remediation for contamination, it would be useful to identify that measures should ensure that the land should not capable of being determined as 'contaminated land' under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 post development.