Horntye to Claremont
Relocation Still in the Balance
By Hugh Sullivan
The intended relocation of prime cricket and hockey clubs from Horntye Park to Claremont school, to be financed by development of Horntye as a housing estate, remains in the balance.
Planning permission for new facilities at Claremont was granted by Rother District Council in June last year, and the cricketers of Hastings & St Leonards Priory are already playing their home matches there this summer.
But the long term moves of both the Priory Club and South Saxons Hockey Club remain dependent upon grant of permission by Hastings Borough Council (HBC) for a proposed housing development on the site of the existing cricket ground and all-weather 3G hockey pitch. And a submission by Sport England to HBC’s planning portal earlier this month has cast a serious sporting doubt.
It refers to paragraph 99 of the National Planning Policy Framework (see side column) under which existing open space used for sport should not be built on unless replaced “by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location,” or where the ensuing sporting benefits “clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use”.
No Other Sites Available
Sport England recognise that the two clubs themselves not only favour the move to Claremont school but “consider that the move is essential to their survival”. Moreover HBC’s Leisure Manager has accepted that there are no other sites available in the borough where such facilities could be delivered either now or in the foreseeable future.
However, Sport England also note that Claremont “is poorly located outside of the town boundary on the A21 where access by public transport is very limited and safe access by bike or foot is not feasible and should not be encouraged”. Both the school and the Hastings and Rother Sports Trust, which owns the Horntye Park land, are committed to providing future community access to the school facilities through the implementation of a community use agreement. But Sport England clearly question how this will play out. “The loss of the pitches from Horntye and the Borough will reinforce and widen existing inequalities in the ability of different sections of the community to access traditional pitch sports,” they have written. “This is particularly the case in Hastings that is the 13th most deprived local authority area out of 317 in England and where in excess of 33% of households do not have access to a car.”
Sport England have not actually come out in opposition – they merely conclude that the planning authority “should reach a decision on this application in full light of the information submitted and having assessed the proposal against paragraph 99 of the NPPF”. Trust director David Nessling remains bullish.
“A win-win”
“Development of Horntye Park is a win-win for everyone,” he argues. “The council get much needed housing and a care home, all in a green environment; the town’s main cricket and hockey clubs get new purpose-built facilities to use; existing Horntye pavilion users see facilities retained. The Trust are placed in a position to undertake necessary maintenance of the pavilion, are able to introduce pavilion enhancements, and to clear their indebtedness; and we can change our trust structure so we are allowed to distribute bursaries to deserving local sports people and teams. Access to Claremont is the same as access to Horntye, where pretty nearly 100% of visitors come to the site via their own transport.”
That last point is very debatable. It is an easy walk or cycle ride from much of Hastings and St Leonards to Horntye, even if the majority of users come by car. On the other hand, councillors on the planning committee will shortly have to determine whether loss of sporting accessibility is a price worth paying to secure the two clubs’ future in conjunction with the opportunity to see more housing built in a prime location near the centre of town.
National Planning Policy Framework
99. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:
(a) an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or
(b) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or
(c) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.
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