Clive Vale wildlife battle continues
RICHARD PRICE
Hastings Borough Council ‘s planning officers have recommended refusal of a second application to build on a Clive Vale local wildlife site.
However some local residents are worried this may not be the end of this story, and that fear of legal action might make elected council members overturn the decision, allowing the developer to return.
The application for Permission in Principle (PIP) for the development of between seven and nine dwellings on the site (HS/PIP/23/00242) was submitted on 28 March by the East Mountain Trading Company. It is identical to last year’s application with the exception of a solicitor’s letter. This argues that previous objections were “unjustified” and do not outweigh the “benefits of providing much needed local housing”.
The process has outraged local people. The site was cleared and trees and bushes fed into a wood chipper before the preliminary ecological survey was carried out. The Applicant, Keith Hollidge, has claimed that the site is cleared annually. However, people who live in the area deny that is the case. “In my 24 years living at my address I cannot recall it being cleared more than three times,” said Ray Read in his written objection.
Objections and refusal
The current application resulted in 148 objections before it was refused under powers delegated by elected councillors to planning officers. Residents argue that an unfortunate consequence of making decisions through delegation rather than full committee is that the councillors will not get to read the objections and understand the issues that have been raised.
Murray Davidson, the Council’s Environment and Natural Resources Manager, quoted a list of environmental policies that the application would breach and claimed that the ecological surveys were inadequate.
On the other hand, the council’s arboriculturist did not object. He wrote that “Previous tree cover on this site was of unexceptional landscape quality.”
The CPRE (Council for the Protection of Rural England), ELF (The Environmental Law Foundation) and The Sussex Wildlife Trust all wrote comprehensive objections quoting a list of council environmental policies that would be broken should the application be approved.
“Irreparable harm”
ELF wrote: “This latest application should be refused for the same reasons it was last year. That includes the irreparable harm which development will cause to the Clive Vale Local Wildlife Site, the amenity it provides to local residents, and the loss of wildlife corridors that development will give rise to.”
Clive Vale resident Chris Hurrell objected: “The new application includes a legal cover letter that argues that the previous refusal was unjustified but offers no new evidence to support the argument.” He went on to question whether or not a PIP application is the proper forum to challenge previous decisions. He went on: “I am concerned that the Tree Officer still claims that the trees on this site are ‘of unexceptional landscape quality’. It’s unclear what he means by this, as the trees offered screening, land stability and refuge for wildlife in this local wildlife site…The tree officer then states that the application is ‘acceptable subject to amendments/conditions’ . He then fails to list any conditions – furthermore conditions cannot be imposed on PIP applications.” The coppiced trees on the site provide land stability and coppicing is generally considered one of the best management techniques for wildlife.
Anna Page summed up the feelings of many objectors when she wrote: “This is a site for wildlife, and we are supposed to be protecting the environment and biodiversity in an attempt to avert climate catastrophe and our own demise as a species.”
Clive Vale residents now wait to see what, if any, further action the developer will pursue. It could include appealing the refusal, or else applying for a Lawful Development Certificate which effectively by-passes the planning process.
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.
Yet again this site, like so many others, demonstrate how poor forward planning policy and development control is Hastings. The traditional large sites beloved of commercial developers have all but gone placing greater emphasis on small infill or hitherto uneconomic sites such as this in the forefront of providing housing for the town. The way to deal with this is to have more detailed and more site specific policies and to collaborative with local people on which and how sites may be developed for a balance of nature and people. This may well be through development of neighbourhood plans but could also include different types of housing, for example earth sheltering on steep sites, which will support flora and fauna.