A cliff top housing development of 37 homes has been approved in a neighbourhood hit by landslips.
Councillors yesterday green-lighted MPG (St Leonards) Limited’s bid to build a block of flats and 10 houses in West Hill Road.
The road is in an area of St Leonard’s where new planning rules have just been put in place because of concerns around land stability.
Members of Hastings Borough Council’s planning committee raised these concerns, asking a number of questions about its impact and the measures being taken to secure the area.
But planning officer Tom Bagshaw said the issue could be adequately addressed through conditions.
He said: “We can only expect the application, in theory, to mitigate its own impacts. We can’t expect it to stabilise the rest of the cliff. We can only expect it to prevent it causing any landslides on its own land and prevent causing it elsewhere.
“In this case it is the applicant’s intention to use piled foundations. Piled foundations essentially drill down to bedrock … so essentially, the weight carried by the houses won’t be carried by the softer clay towards the top of the cliff.
“This will all be ironed out in significant detail because of [the conditions] .. we have asked the question more than once whether this is achievable via condition and our geotechnical engineer has assured us that this is something to be dealt with as a condition.
“Subject to this condition, the scheme will essentially wash its own face in terms of land stability. It won’t result in harms elsewhere and it won’t result in harms on its own site … we can’t expect them to stabilise the cliff beyond their own site and their own impacts.”
The developer must now provide a “comprehensive ground stability investigation report” setting out mitigation measures prior to any work starting on site.
There was also discussion of the council’s recent issuing of a directive limiting permitted development rights in the nearby area as a result of concerns tied to land stability.
The directive, issued last week, requires homeowners to secure planning permission for development which would not normally need it. It does not directly affect this application.
In a report to the committee, officers had noted how the site is already allocated for development for up to 117 homes through an application approved in 1989.
During the meeting, however, Mr Bagshaw said this scheme could be considered to have ‘no realistic prospect of being delivered’.
Mr Bagshaw had been responding to a question from Green Party councillor Yunis Smith, who questioned whether the 37-home scheme made sufficient use of the site.
Later in the meeting, Cllr Smith said: “I get obviously that the developer is up to do whatever they want to do with their land, but they’ve got space for 10 luxury town houses, but we can’t put more apartment style properties?
“I understand it is their development, they can do what they want with it, but I really feel we are underhitting that mark.”
It was also noted how the scheme would not include any affordable housing provision as a result of viability issues.
The committee felt the scheme was acceptable as long as sufficient conditions were in place to mitigate its impact on the surrounding area.
Proposing approval, Cllr Matthew Beaver (Con) said: “Am I happy with this totally? No, of course not. I’ve never been happy with this site being built on; 117 was always scary beyond belief, 37 at least is a little bit better.
“I probably haven’t seen this many conditions and this many extra bits on an application for many years. Usually it is two, three or four, this runs into pages. As has been confirmed with things like surface water, with land stability, there are conditions in there that say, ‘if you do not meet these requirements, you do not build it.’”
He added: “On balance I am … content to propose that we accept the application, subject to all the conditions laid out in the paperwork.”
For further information on the proposals click here.
