|
|
|
|
Despite a vast amount of documented evidence setting out
why Robsack Meadow and the Ancient Woodlands are vital to the wildlife habitat and
numerous objections from local residents, Hastings Council (the owners of the
site) granted themselves outline planning consent in June 2008 for
the construction of two five storey
blocks of flats on the meadow. It is the intention of the
council to sell this land to developers. Planning reference number
HS/OA/08/00221
(Robsack "A") available to view on the Council’s website.
The proposed development will sever the link between
the two Ancient Woodlands, cause the loss of Ancient Woodland trees, isolate
Robsack Wood completely and consequently cause the degradation of a habitat
vitally important to many protected species.
In
1997/98 a planning application for housing on the meadow was withdrawn.
The Borough Ecologist produced an all-embracing report (eleven
pages in content) outlining why development should be refused.
His summary included the following observations:
*
Adversely affect the matrix of habitats in the area
* Adversely affect the council’s endeavours to protect and enhance an integrated
system of green networks
* Isolate an area of woodland within a development with corresponding
degradation of the habitat
* Impact upon a range and diversity of wildlife
* Appear contrary to the policies of protection for habitat and the green
network and the ethos of sustainable development within the Borough Plan
Review
He went
on to say that “Robsack Wood has become increasingly isolated through
the development of adjacent houses.
Whilst it is not yet entirely annexed on its own, the approval of this proposed
further development will result in Robsack Wood and Church Wood becoming
completely isolated from adjacent habitats.”
This
report was not presented to the Planning Committee. Objectors to the
planning application obtained copies of this report a day before the
planning meeting despite requesting sight of the report many weeks before
the planning committee were due to make a decision on the application. The
reasons given by the Council planning department for this delay was due to the
whereabouts of the file being “unknown”. They also informed protestors that the
file had no relevance to the current application!
We
consider the
documents presented to the planning committee contained many ambiguous and
inaccurate statements – the site is described as being adjacent to
ancient woodland – not true! The site incorporates ancient
woodland which will be felled in order to create a vehicular roadway into the
development. The documents describe the proposed development as being similar in
size and scale to existing properties – not true! All houses in the
vicinity are conventional detached two storey houses with gardens and garages.
The Head
of Planning has denied that any ancient woodland is within the site – not
true! Natural
Our
campaign to ‘Protect Robsack Meadow’ from development is based on historical data that illustrates the importance of this bio-diverse, valuable
and sensitive resource.
Hastings
Council engaged Canopy Consultants to carry out surveys on the site in 2007.
These surveys are incomplete, and the documentation contains a number of
statements that do not hold up under scientific scrutiny.
The Council was not provided with the necessary ecological
information with which to make an informed decision.
Many of the species that should have been considered in the mitigation
were not because historical data was not used.
The surveyors appear to have been aware of the limits of their remit to
assess the presence or otherwise of specific groups at the time of year in which
these surveys were carried out and consequently made recommendations for
further ongoing surveys.
All of those recommendations were ignored and there have been no ongoing surveys.
At the time of writing, over two years have elapsed since any further
surveys were carried out despite each Canopy surveyor recommending cyclical
surveys at appropriate times of the year in relation to the species present…
Many of the Canopy ecological reports refer to species being “unlikely” to be present – unlikely/doubtful is not a tolerable evaluation when assessing the presence of protected species. Firm evidence should have been provided to the planning committee before an informed decision could have been made in these planning applications. These are material considerations and essential information if planning decisions are to be made with any precision. A planning committee is not in a position to come to a decision if fundamental and significant information is vague/withheld/imprecise/inaccurate.