Mrs Christine Barkshire-Jones

20 Hawthorn Road

Clive Vale

HASTINGS

East Sussex

TN35 5HW

02 July 2014

Mrs Christine Barkshire-Jones,

Chief Legal Officer

Hastings Borough Council

Legal services

2nd Floor Aquila House

Breeds Place Hastings

East Sussex

TN34 3UY

Planning Application Number: HS/FA/14/00406/CB

Location:Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY

Proposed Development: Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission HS/FA/12/00952 - Minor amendment showing change of ground floor plan, additional and altered window positions, and extended balcony. (Retrospective)

I am writing this letter as it has been 16 days since I lodged my formal complaint into the way in which application HS/FA/14/00406 was handled from its registration to the planning committee report, compiled by the Development Control Manager, Raymond Crawford. I have had no reply to this letter so a copy is attached in case it has not been received in your department.

It seems as if your complaints procedure has been structured in such a way, thatyou completely ignore complaint letters in the hope that the complainer will go away. The planning committee members might have seen sense, a quality that seems to elude your development control manager, and voted unanimously to refuse this application, but this decision does not take away the fact that false and misleading information was presented to the committee both in the paperwork and verbally to committee members from the development control manager.

It seems as if the development control manager has been determined to pass this application, as he was with the parent approval HS/FA/12/00952, when he gave advice in a pre-consultation meeting with the applicants and their agent on how to get the application successfully through the planning system. The advice given, was over and above that of a planning officer, and must go against the ‘Council’s Code of Conduct’ and ‘Planning Protocol’. Mr Crawford expressed his view that he liked the property, but it looked more like a house, and not a holiday let and offered advice on changing the drawings so that the property would give an appearance of being commercial and not residential.

The advice given was for superficial changes and it would seem from the submitted drawings, which were exactly the same as those refused a few months previously, even the drawing number has the same reference number, which should have rung alarm bells, that his advice was not taken. The application was registered on 5 December 2012 and on 11 December 2012 letters were distributed to two adjoining properties, one of which is in the ownership of the applicants. At the time of registration, which was several months after the pre-application meeting there were only 4 documents submitted. The closing date for comments and objections was 8 January 2013 but documents and drawings were submitted after that date and there was no extension time for objections or comments to be made.

It is understood that if additional drawings and information is submitted that a further consultation period is given, thus allowing any third party representation to be made. The Planning Solicitor, Kirsty Cameron, was most adamant at the planning committee meeting, 18 June 2014, that any documentation received after 3.00 pm on the previous Friday, date for final consultation, should be ignored. Surely, this should then be the case for the applicants as all relevant documentation should be available for viewing within the 21 day consultation period.

A drawing, number 11/396/2, which is included in the decision notice and had a bearing on the approval decision, was not submitted until 6 February 2013, 7 days before the application was determined by delegated powers. This drawing which showed the relationship between the previously approved extension to the bungalow, against the new two storey holiday let, in relationship to the three storey holiday let with penthouse suite that had previously been approved and built. Other documentation was submitted only days prior to a decision being made and that included a revised ‘Design and Access Statement’. We have read this document, over and over again, and against the previously submitted document and cannot see a difference but it was obviously enough to satisfy the case officer/development control manager and was used in the determination process. Other documentation that had been requested on 15 August 2012 was not submitted until after the consultation period but was used in the determination of the application. False statements were used by the applicants, in their submitted evidence regarding the property being used as a holiday let since they took over in 1997, as previous to the application being submitted they stated that the property had been used as solely residential since 1900. Which is quite a mean feat as the property was not constructed until the 1920 (Richard James’ ‘Heritage Statement’, page 6).

There seems to be some confusion on whether this ‘new’two storey holiday let HS/FA/12/00952 and HS/FA/14/00406 is in a Conservation Area and whether C1 applies. The wording on the policy would lead you to believe that it does apply, as it is adjacent to a conservation area. When asked, the development control manager stated that a conservation area was the built up area and that the natural area was covered by AONB. ‘Policy C1’ was not referred to even though the application form and site notice all stated that it was in a Conservation Area. The draft minutes to the planning committee meeting, 18 June 2014, state that the wording Y has been deleted from the record and the ‘Policy C1’ removed, yet there are still mistakes within the officer’s report, that have not been mentioned or deleted, such as the wrong section of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 being referred to.

‘POLICY C1

Development within Conservation Areas

Planning permission for development proposals within and, adjacent to conservation areas will not be granted unless:-

a) The proposal would preserve or enhance the buildings, related spaces, the streetscene and other features that contribute to the character or appearance of the area;

(b) There is a high standard of design and detailing which reflects the surrounding architectural style, scale, massing, boundary treatment and site coverage;

(c) Trees, gardens, spaces between buildings and other open spaces (and particularly parks and gardens in conservation areas) which contribute to the character of the area should not be lost;

(d) High quality/traditional materials and finishes that are sensitive to neighbouring properties must be employed;

(e) The layout and arrangements of the building(s) should follow the pattern of existing development and plot widths; and

(f) The character and amenity of the area would be safeguarded following the accordance of the development with suitable car parking and access requirements.

The Council will expect all planning applications to be accompanied by sufficient information to allow a full assessment of the proposal to be made and will refuse planning permission if such information is not provided.’

During the planning committee meeting,on 18 June 2014, Mr Crawford stated that he was happy that the application was only for ‘minor amendments’, a confirmation of his report where he used words such as insignificantly bigger, minor and minimal. Mr Crawford did not stipulate whether or not the application was for ‘minor material’ or ‘non material amendments’ just that it was a ‘minor amendment’, which in ‘Government Guidelines’ refers to ‘non material amendments’, a fact also picked up by barrister, Christiaan Zwart.

When asked what the definition of a ‘minor amendment’ was in his opinion, he did not give a clear answer and implied that a ‘minor amendment’ can be tailored to suit as there are no written guidelines, which is not true as there are ‘Government Guidelines’on how the application should be treated, and in their opinion, what can and cannot be considered under the category; it is up to the individual LPA’s to print their own guidelines so that there is no confusion, and people can know what is acceptable under the category of ‘minor non material’ and ‘minor material amendments’and what is not. This description is too general and cannot be classed as transparent and open planning procedures.

The application was presented as a ‘Full Planning Application’ when it is a variation to a condition attached to the previously approved plans 11/396/1 and 11/396/2. It is not a ‘standalone planning application’ that can be judged in its own rights, and given a three year implementation period. This in itself is ludicrous as the application was submitted retrospectively so therefore, how can an implementation period of three years from the date of the planning committee meeting be appropriate or legal. It seems as if this application is not the only one that has been treated incorrectly, not only in the fact that the ‘minor material amendments’ cannot under any circumstances be considered ‘minor’ but in the fact that the applications are judged under section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and are given a three year extension to the previous approval.

An application for ‘minor material amendments’ should be judged under section 73 of the 1990 Act, and the date should be the same as the parent approval to which it is linked. I have noticed dozens of these applications, which have been treated incorrectly and will be compiling a database in due course. It would seem as if under this new regime that developers no longer have to ask for an extension to their previous approval they can just tweak the plans a little, and submit it as a ‘minor material amendment’ and get a three year extension.

It would appear as if your planning department need further training in handling ‘non material’ and ‘minor material amendments’, as each seems to have been given a different process depending upon the case officer, even the individual case officers seem to differ in the handling of this type of application and have no standard procedure. I do not think that it is good enough for the development control manager to stand up at the beginning of the meeting and say that the date is incorrect, as it should relate to the parent approval, and even the date that was given for that was the wrong year. I have researched this extensively and Government Guidelines, which is followed by most LPA’s, stipulate that a ‘minor material amendment’ must be dealt with by way of a formal application and by completing a ‘Variation or Removal of Condition Application Form’.

This informal process of working might be of benefit to the developers, that need significant changes made to the design of their properties, or to extend the implementation time of planning permissions, but it is not fair for the local residents as their interests are not taken into consideration in the planning process. The applications are presented in such a way, that there is little or no objection, as it is perceived that the changes are insignificant, minor or minimal

When, in fact, if the applications were to be dissected, would be none of the above.

For the sake of clarification I have printed the guidelines for dealing with ‘minor material amendments’:

‘Amending the conditions attached to a permission including seeking minor material amendments (application under Section 73 TCPA 1990)

How are the conditions attached to a planning permission amended?

An application can be made under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary or remove conditions associated with a planning permission. One of the uses of a section 73 application is to seek a minor material amendment, where there is a relevant condition that can be varied.

Are there any restrictions on what section 73 can be used for?

Planning permission cannot be granted under section 73 to extend the time limit within which a development must be started or an application for approval of reserved matters must be made.

What is the effect of a grant of permission?

Where an application under section 73 is granted, the effect is the issue of a new planning permission, sitting alongside the original permission, which remains intact and unamended.

A decision notice describing the new permission should be issued, setting out all of the conditions related to it. To assist with clarity decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 should also repeat the relevant conditions from the original planning permission, unless they have already been discharged. Further information about conditions can be found in the guidance for use of planning conditions.

As a section 73 application cannot be used to vary the time limit for implementation, this condition must remain unchanged from the original permission. If the original permission was subject to a planning obligation then this may need to be the subject of a deed of variation.’

I have listed a few variations to conditions applications; found by searching for applications that had been decided in February and March 2014, and listed below are a few examples where wrong planning procedures have been followed. I am concerned that as I have only covered a couple of months, and the new way of dealing with ‘minor material amendments’ was introduced in 2009, that there may be hundreds of applications that have been judged under the wrong section of the Town and Country Act 1990, and have had their implementation period extended. I have not raised questions over whether, or not, these applications should have been judged under the category of ‘minor amendment’, but have listed only those which do not follow correct planning procedure.

*****************

Application: HS/FA/14/00286 - Variation of condition 4 (approved plans) of Planning Permission HS/FA/13/00830 – Demolition of existing rear conservatory and extension and erection of ground floor single storey – Amendment, alterations to support new doors, with new front entrance ramps and removal of chimney.

Address: The Victoria Inn, 290 Battle Road, St Leonards on Sea, TN37 7BA.

It was not considered necessary to advertise the proposal in the Hastings’ Observer, there is no record on whether a site notice was posted. The description says ‘amendments’ but does not stipulate whether they are ‘minor material amendments’ or ‘non material amendments’.

The delegated officer’s report recommends in Condition 1: ‘The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.’ The reason given: ‘This condition is imposed in accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990’.

The wrong section of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was used in this case as it should have been section 73 of the 1990 Act. The date should be the same as the parent approval HS/FA/13/00830 (25 November 2013). It should not have been given a further three year implementation period. The condition that related to HS/FA/13/00830 was condition 4 – it now appears to be condition 6.

The conditions from the original approval have not been duplicated on this application. This application has been treated as a ‘standalone planning application’ and has not been linked to the parent approval.

*****************

Application: Variation of Condition 3 (drawing number Revision 1.1 for 1.3 (alterations to internal layout) of planning permission HS/FA/14/00014 and cycle storage details (Condition 2).

Address:30 Chapel Park Road, St Leonards on Sea, TN37 6HU

It was not considered necessary to advertise the proposal in the Hastings’ Observer, there is no record on whether a site notice was posted. The description says ‘alterations’ but does not stipulate whether they are ‘minor material amendments’ or ‘non material amendments’. This will have a bearing on what section of the Town and Country Planning Act is used, whether it is section 73 (minor material amendment) or section 96A (non material amendment).

In this case two separate variations to the same planning application seem to have been submitted and at first I was confused as to where condition 3 appeared from, but it seems as if there are two final delegated officer’s reports – one of which has included the drawing numbers so that they can be varied at a future date.

The wrong section of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was used in this case as it should have been either section 73 of the 1990 Act or section 96A of the Act depending on whether the changes were material or not. The date should be the same as the parent approval HS/FA/14/00014 (21 February 2014). It should not have been given a further three year implementation period.

*****************

Application: HS/FA/12/202 - Variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission HS/FA/11/00483 – Minor material amendment showing rear roof of extension as fully pitched and alterations to roof light windows.

Address:127 The Ridge, Hastings, TN34 2AB

It was not considered necessary to advertise the proposal in the Hastings’ Observer, there is no record on whether a site notice was posted.

The wrong section of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was used in this case as it should have beensection 73 of the 1990 Act. The date should be the same as the parent approval HS/FA/11/00483 (2 August 2011). The life of the permission has been extended by nearly three years!!

*****************

Application: HS/FA/13/00571 Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission HS/FA/13/0157(Demolition of existing public house and construction of eleven flats together with associated parking) – change in unit layout