No Planning Brief!

A Planning Brief is a document which summarises the Planning Authority's guidelines and requirements for the development of a particular site or collection of sites. A Planning Brief is generally produced for sites of a significant size or for particularly sensitive sites - like the Archery Ground, which require more detailed guidance. Planning briefs are independently produced by regional design panels who can support and assess local requirements based on a depth of knowledge and experience that is not usually available within small planning offices like HBC. Once a planning brief has been produced the local planning authorities have a clear mandate for dealing with developers and local communities affected by the development to ensure a development that is sensitively conceived for local needs.

'The Archery Ground is a Heritage Asset in terms of Policy Planning Statement 5 and was an intrinsic part of the Burtons’ development; recognised as an area of outstanding national importance. In spite of this, Hastings Borough Council deemed the site insufficiently important to warrant a planning brief. Lacking this they have proved hopelessly inadequate in dealing with Gladedale and upholding the architectural and aesthetic principles that the site demanded.

An email between a councillor and Tim Cookson in October 2009 illustrates how far the gulf developed between the original planning aims and the actual planning outcome. Each pointed question is followed by a terse reply from Cookson exposing his deluded assessment of the current plans. A clear planning brief could have averted this. (Cookson's replies are in red)

Tim,
I have had quite a bit of correspondence from individuals and groups regarding the Hastings College site on Archery Road. I would be grateful for your professional response to a few points I would like to raise:

• Does the planning authority believe that this site is "in the heart of a nationally important
  architecturally designed historic settlement," as expressed by the then conservation and design
  manager in an E-Mail to planning colleagues on 8th October 2008?
  Yes . The email you are referring to relates to an earlier scheme. The scheme has significantly moved on
  from that earlier effort.
  • In this context do you feel that the current application equates to the "built forms and spatial creativity of the highest possible quality" that you called for in your note on regarding this site of September 2006 and does it provide the "excellence standards" that, in the same note, you said the planners would be seeking "in terms of both building performance and visual quality?"
  In terms of the general layout yes - we have yet to fully consider the submitted design details.
  • Do you have a view about the proposed density of 73 units per hectare within the current application compared to the suggestion in your note the "overall the site is felt to have the potential for a 40 to 50 dwellings to the hectare scheme?"
  The density is acceptable and appropriate in this location.
  • Do you accept the view expressed by the council's conservation and design officer expressed in her note of December 2008 that "any new development within the Burton area would be expected to reflect the key character and grain of the surrounding historic townscape. The key characteristics are: low density suburban development - a high class suburb ... substantial buildings within generous plots".
  We have been closely involved in the working up of the application and consider the design approach to be acceptable from an urban design point of view
  • What is your view of her comments that "the proposals feel inner urban rather than suburban ... the scale of some of the proposed buildings and the plot sizes is very mean?"
  See above response.
  • Do you feel her comments that the "buildings lack architectural distinction" and that "too much of the open space is dominated by roads and car parking" are fair?
  See above response. We consider the present scheme has a reasonable balance between open space and the needs of the motor vehicle.
  • Again do you feel she has a point when she says: "In addition to the trees that are covered by TPOs, there are other mature groups of trees, especially on the site boundaries, that contribute to the character of the conservation area and that I would like to see retained and incorporated within the new landscaping scheme if possible?"
  The Borough Arboriculturist has been closely involved with the architects as the scheme has been worked up and is happy with the development and replanting proposals.
  • English Heritage seem to echo these views in their letter to the developer of April this year when they write: "A relatively high proportion of the site will be hard standing ... 1 would like to see the intrusiveness of this limited ... Retaining and reinforcing a strong planted boundary to the site ... would ensure that a clear distinction is maintained between the development site and the adjoining areas. In particular, the northern part of Archery Road has a strong semi-rural character that should be maintained." Does the planning authority concur with these comments
  as your note of September 2006 states that "there is a need to retain the trees covered by TPOs where possible and generally retain existing established trees which are of good quality?"
  This has been done "where possible" and the Borough Arboriculturist is happy with the scheme and a replanting scheme has been agreed.
  • Has advice been sought by the applicant from the regional design panel as the planning authority suggested to the developer would be expected?
  No, the RDP (The Regional Design Panel) now charges for their service and HBC decided not to refer it. English heritage will be consulted on the scheme. .....................See actual email