Hastings councillors are set to decide whether the authority will fund further investigations into a catastrophic landslide in the town.
Next Wednesday (September 25), Hastings Borough Council is set to hold an ‘extraordinary meeting’ where councillors will be expected to decide the authority’s next steps in its response to the landslide at the Old Roar Gill nature reserve.
The landslide, which occurred in February, saw homes evacuated after the gardens of two properties disappeared down into the nature reserve.
Last month, the council published a report on the causes of the landslip. The report from specialist consultants Diales — a firm appointed by the council’s insurers — said further investigation works would be needed before any remedial stabilisation works could take place.
These further investigation works are understood to be both costly and time-intensive. Just one element of these works, a groundwater monitoring regime, would take at least six months to complete.
Councillors are now set to decide whether to move ahead with these further investigations.
In a report, officers set out three options for councillors to consider: funding the further investigation work itself; jointly funding the investigation work with the affected residents; or choosing not to carry out the investigation work recommended by Diales.
The report goes on to set out pros and cons of each approach, but does not recommend one over another.
By funding the work itself, officers say the council would be able to secure a comprehensive understanding of both the causes of the landslide and the current stability of the area. However, officers say this approach would also involve a “significant financial commitment from Hastings Borough Council” and may potentially be seen as an “admission of liability”, something the council refutes.
Officers say sharing the costs with residents would avoid these downsides, but could also prove to be complicated. The financial implications for residents, who have already suffered significant financial losses from the landslide, could also see the works delayed, officers note.
The final option would limit the council’s costs and avoid any complications around funding arrangements with the affected residents. However, it also carries a risk to life, something officers say could result in severe reputational and financial losses for the council.
At this stage, the specific costs for the investigation works have not been made public, due to reasons of commercial confidentiality. However, the public section of the report describes these costs as “high”.
The report also notes how the council’s insurer has indicated it will not accept further responsibility for the landslide unless legal liability is established.
