The consultation

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Object

Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014

Representation ID: 5865

Received: 22/04/2014

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

'Legally Compliant'? Don't know.
'Sound'? No.
Complies with the Duty to Co-operate? No.

Several matters:
The Alpha proposals are harmful. A 'landmark building' is unnecessary in a landmark space.
The Policies Map treats the Convent inconsistently, its playing fields clearly Private Open Space.
The Convent's contribution to its Conservation Area is disregarded (as are Management Plans for them).
Loss of the East Wing would breach Policy EN1.
'Enabling development' is persistently undefined.
White Rock Gardens are marginalised. The Inset Map could have included them.

Full text:

Hastings Development Management Plan: Revised Proposed Submission Version (April 2014)

Three matters in particular merit mention:
a) The proposed redevelopment of the Alpha Café site (ref CLB2, p162) would do harm to the setting of Warrior Square Station and the Southwater Valley. A landmark building (par 6.201) is not necessary in a striking and handsome landmark space, part of the King's Road Conservation Area.
b) Regarding the Convent, Magdalen Road (Figure 1, Policy HN6, pp32-3), the Policies Map has an inconsistency between the treatment of its two main spaces. One is defined as Private Open Space but not the other, which includes the playing fields. As the Convent is a major component of the Magdalen Road Conservation Area, both the northern and southern spaces are deserving of designation.
Also, it is surprising that policy HN6 is not in accordance with national guidance on enabling development. The basis for this remains obscure. Demolition of the Italianate East Wing building would be in ostensible breach of policies EN1 and HN8 properly applied. (That policies HN6, HN7 and HN8 have been rolled into HN10 is not reassuring either.)
c) The treatment of White Rock Gardens is strangely muted, beyond euphemisms about more skateboarding. As Central St Leonards extends to Falaise Road, and as the Gardens are so extensive and the hinterland of the new Pier, this is surprising.

Your ask three questions on whether the Development Management Plan
a) is 'Legally Compliant' — complies with the legal requirements in The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004?
b) is 'Sound'?
c) complies with the Duty to Co-operate?

In reply:
a) Don't Know — and is there even a consensus among top planning counsel?
b) NPPF par 182 defines 'sound' - namely that your Plan is
Positively prepared - the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;
This sounds reassuringly technocratic, but who is to say what 'objectively assessed' means in this context? Where is the co-operation with 'partner organisations' (as in Policy LP1) such as English Heritage | HELM? Conclusion: fails to comply.
Justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;
Policy HN10 (page 37) has a troubling ambiguity, where it mentions land provided in compensation: is that new land or nearby land? In other words, can White Rock Gardens - or even Alexandra Park - be held to compensate for [say] the loss of the Convent?
Too often, existing planning criteria are not applied, or alternatives to planning proposals have not been properly assessed. Conclusion: fails.
Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities;
Rother Council has a planning policy that seems more impressive than Hastings'. Conclusion: complies.
Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.
Regarding Policy HN6 (page 33), why don't 'enabling development' proposals for the Convent comply with the national criteria for enabling development?
Where are the management plans for the Conservation Areas, in accordance with English Heritage's Understanding Place (2012)? Conclusion: fails markedly.
As a consequence, it all fails.

c) The Duty to Co-operate is problematised by the consultation procedure, which is noticeably difficult. (See letter in the local Observer, 18 April 2014, for instance.) Many have commented on how obscure and confusing and unwieldy the process was | is — well beyond the necessary intricacies of detailed planning. The impression conveyed is that it is wilfully obstructive and obscure.
Additionally the consultation period seems oddly short. References change and are otherwise inconsistent. Planners have been little seen in promoting a public response (yet the RTPI is awash with advice about Community Engagement).

You sent me my previous submissions and asked about withdrawal of my input. For the record, I stand by everything I said previously — including endorsing your proposals for the sorting office site (CLB3).

The Plan is largely is unobjectionable but that is not the same. There is a problem that planning's high language too often results in low outcomes. The Plan at present is failing regarding Objective 3 and Objective 7. A consequence is that as it stands it would damage the exceptional quality of the town.
The scope for civic pride in St Leonards and Hastings remains, but so does its planning reputation as the home of low standards.

Object

Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014

Representation ID: 5943

Received: 22/04/2014

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The consultation is illegal & fails to consult the public. This is because the housing allocations for each area cannot be contested, the underlying statistics on which they are based are unavailable & no changes are allowed on/in the consultation.

Full text:

See attached -
Name: R Price
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering Reps 5941-5964 inclusive

Object

Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014

Representation ID: 5989

Received: 22/04/2014

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

You say you have made every effort to inform locals about this consultation, but I only heard of it recently, and you did not get in touch with Hastings Local History Group, despite it being in the Citizens' Guide, on the ESCIS list etc.

Full text:

See attached -
Name: Hastings Local History Group via Heather Grief
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering Reps 5985-5989

Object

Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014

Representation ID: 6032

Received: 22/04/2014

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Revised document had many changes, only a 6 week consultation and we did not have the full process of community involvement - there have been no meetings by the Planners with the community in Focus Areas 1-13. A six week extension was requested but was refused. The Planning Strategy and the Development Management Plan were to be adopted within a few months of each other, we get six weeks for consultation and the Planners have up to 13 weeks to get the information to the Planning Inspector and then 16 months to be adopted by Council?!?

Full text:

See attached -
Name: A Ingleton
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering Reps 5994-6032 & 6034-6040 inclusive

Object

Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014

Representation ID: 6034

Received: 22/04/2014

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The first problem is the bureaucratic system which makes it extremely difficult for residents to make their views easily. The system was set up to reduce public participation and by having policies in both the Planning Strategy and the Development Management Plan. Unlike Rother who used their previous policies in their Local Plan, all Hastings policies are new as revised.

Full text:

See attached -
Name: A Ingleton
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering Reps 5994-6032 & 6034-6040 inclusive

Object

Development Management Plan Revised Proposed Submission Version March 2014

Representation ID: 6040

Received: 22/04/2014

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The basis of the planning system is the consideration of private proposals against wider public interest. The conduct of Officers must be in accordance with Probity in Planning produced by the Local Government Association.

It is noted that the consultation for the Development Management Plan was 12 weeks and the Planning Policy team have 30 weeks before the Public Examination.

Full text:

See attached -
Name: A Ingleton
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering Reps 5994-6032 & 6034-6040 inclusive