Design changes to Hastings holiday let approved ending long-running planning saga

On Tuesday (January 19), Hastings Borough Council’s planning committee approved a retrospective application to change the design of a holiday let at the Rocklands Caravan Park – a site with a long planning history.

A form of the development was first granted approval in February 2013 and building work began shortly afterwards. However, the applicants were later ordered to cease work and demolish the building, as the council considered it had not been built in “accordance with the approved plans.”

The applicants took this enforcement order to appeal and in 2016 the development was given permission by a planning inspector with a new set of drawings. 

The latest application sought to vary this approval as the final building does not match drawings approved at appeal – a point which saw some criticism from committee members.

Among those to criticise the developer was Cllr Sorrell Marlow-Eastwood (Con), who said: “Given the amount of advice that they have had and the upset that has been caused by this, it is a shame this is retrospective. 

“When people come to us in advance, not only are the planning committee happier, but actually those people who are around and able to follow it through the planning regulations are also much happier.

“I just can’t help feeling that a lot of angst could be ruled out if people went about it the right way.”

Similar criticism was voiced by Cllr Phil Scott (Lab), who said: “This particular application is I think very worrying, because the developer know exactly what they are doing. It is almost thumbing a nose at the local authority. 

“The risk is entirely down to them. That is the thing. There is no risk to the borough council. All of the risk comes to the developer.

“The reality, once again, is we are in a position where we are looking at this variation and frankly there is very little we can do about this.”

Despite concerns, officers said the committee could only consider what was currently proposed when making their decision.

Officers said other concerns such as ongoing enforcement activity, the fact the application was retrospective and previous unauthorised works could not be considered as reasons for refusal.

Concerns around fire safety and structural stability couldn’t be considered either, as they fell within the remit of building control rather than planning. 

The variations from the approved scheme were relatively minor, with the main amendments concerning the inclusion of additional balustrade posts along the building’s glazed balcony.

Officers said this change was for structural reasons and were not considered to “harm the character and appearance of the area.”

The only other changes were an amended design of one window and the omission of a post giving structural support to the balcony.

As a result the application was recommended for approval and – following a short debate – approved by the committee, with seven votes in favour and two against.

For further details of the scheme see application reference HS/FA/20/00470.