Battle Road reopening but legal issues remain
HUGH SULLIVAN
Nearly three years ago, in May 2020, Hastings Borough Council (HBC) sought and obtained a court order requiring repair or demolition of the Arches at 2-12 Battle Road. There was high priority in clearing a derelict and dangerous structure abutting a main road and footway, and since the owners failed to undertake the necessary works, HBC took responsibility.
Delays were inevitable under lockdown and other pandemic measures, but in March 2021 protective concrete blocks were installed as part of the demolition works, southbound traffic was (and remains) diverted, and in January/February 2022 demolition commenced.
Hastings Borough Council issued a statement last week that its work “is now almost completed” and that two-way traffic is expected to be resumed after 14 April, though in the meantime the road has been blocked both ways – first for resurfacing, then for works by Southern Gas Networks at the junction with Paynton Road and Menzies Road
The council expressed “delight” at the imminent completion of the project; it “wants to thank residents and business for their patience during these enforced but critical works”.
Local road-users should certainly be relieved. The closure of the southbound carriageway for the best part of two years has led to over-use and appalling deterioration of alternative roads in the vicinity, particularly in the Ponswood Industrial Estate where pothole damage has reached epidemic proportions.
Lost territory
However, residents of several houses in the street above the Arches, Silverlands Road, have not joined in the general approbation. Those whose back gardens formerly abutted onto the roof of the demolished structure have in some cases lost territory which they regarded as theirs; they have also been deprived of rights of access which they previously enjoyed by two alternative sets of steps down onto Battle Road.
Most concerningly, several have complained that the process of digging out the foundations of the derelict buildings and installing supporting steel works in early last year has caused large cracks to the foundations and/or fabric of their buildings above.
HBC has consistently denied that its contractors’ works had this effect or, if they did, that the council has any liability to redress them. On the contrary, at a meeting in June last year, Kevin Boorman, HBC’s marketing and major projects manager, told a group of house owners that they were themselves responsible to undertake further safety measures in respect of their gardens, walls and any other structures at the rear of their properties. If they did not do so, the council would undertake the necessary safety work and bill them for it – though that hasn’t happened yet.
The removal of the steps appears to be permanent. When property owners claimed that this access was needed as an escape route in case of fire, Mr Boorman told them that a risk assessment had been carried out by surveyors and the risk was “considered to be acceptable”. He agreed that legal deeds and documents confirmed that the steps were “privately owned”, meaning presumably that the owners had legal rights over them, but concluded that “residents should seek their own independent legal and professional advice”.
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
Leave a Reply