In light of the recently published geotechnical report, dated 30 April 2014, and submitted to the council in May 2014,
I object to the current application 00406 most strongly. I recommend that it is either withdrawn, and the applicants
invited to resubmit the application with drawings that only specifically relate to the ‘amendments’ outlined on the
application description, and that all additional proposals are removed completely, so that this application can be
judged fairly using current policies, legislations and guidelines.
There are too many things wrong with this application, in its current form, for it to be judged in an open and
transparent way. Details relating to the proposal for surface water removal and rain harvesting system to be
installed, should be removed from the drawing, as there is a danger that anything that is written or ‘proposed’ on the
drawing will be approved as part of this application. Under current legislations it is usual to quote the drawing
number when adding a condition to the decision notice stating that the development shall conform to the approved
plans.
The geotechnical report asks for a more definitive stability assessment and hazard zonation, and recommend further
ground investigation which may include explanatory hole formation and the installation of monitoring
instrumentation. The fact that this geotechnical report recommends that bore hole tests and that piezometers are
installed would suggest to me that they are unhappy with the water table on the site. From recent photographs,
published on the internet, it would suggest that in specific areas, especially in the back scarp area, beneath the hard
standing of the caravans within the lower terrace of the caravan park, that the surface water was at ground level;
which is also mentioned in the geotechnical report that there was ponded surface water.
It has been indicated that no water pipes appeared to be damaged on the caravan site, but it was noted that there
were sections of pipe, which could have been related to land drainage, at the ground surface within the slipped mass.
This would indicate that the land drainage on the caravan park has been serious compromised by the land slide. The
applicants now appear to be trying to regrade the site and are piling earth against the main-scarp, within the
landslide area which the geotechnical expert state ‘was likely to surcharge the head of the landslide and give rise to
enhance further movement’. As the council has asked for this geotechnical report to be compiled it would be wise to
made heed to their advice and stop all further proposals to ‘amend’ the land drainage system until the full facts are
known.
‘Furthermore, it is recommended that no further earthworks or drainage are undertaken within the caravan park,
without their potential effects on slop stability being assessed in advance’. Understandable in the circumstance, but
one has to remember that there is an application on the table at the moment that suggests that significant
earthworks and construction of land drainage are in the pipeline.
‘New proposed drainage connection to existing system’: No information is given to what the proposed drainage
system is or how it is to be connected to the existing system; in fact it is not known what the existing system is.
‘Rainwater harvesting system overflow to be connected to mains sewerage system as land deemed unsuitable for
soakaways’: ‘A rainwater harvesting system comprises components of various stages - transporting rainwater
through pipes or drains, filtration, and storage in tanks for reuse or recharge’. There are no indications to what type
of system is to be installed, what type of filtration system and storage tank will be needed, or where it will be
located: it is to be underground, partially underground or above ground? Looking at drawings of Rainwater
Harvesting systems for domestic properties there is great deal of components needed to make the system work:
Rainwater storage; pump; filters and main tank. Is this proposed system purely for the use of the new property or is
it to be for the use of the site in general?
What type of material will the main tank be constructed of - it is understood that with some storage tanks that they
have to be emptied in winter as there is danger that the tank may be damaged by frost – what then happens to the
storm water over winter, is it just directed into the sewerage system?
1
What is the purpose of the rainwater harvesting? Is it to be used as a method of controlling storm water or is it to be
recycled for domestic purposes eg domestic appliances, toilet flushing, etc. Is the water to be used as for cooking or
drinking water, what are the health and safety implications?
Who has decided that the land is unsuitable for soakaways? Has the Water Board approved this method of storm
water control and are they happy to have any overflow directed into the main sewerage system? I can see no
evidence submitted with this application that highlights the need for extensive land drainage, other than the obvious
fact that the existing land drainage system cannot cope with the surface water on the site. Surely, there should be a
geotechnical experts report, or an engineer’s report, on what this type of excavation or construction installing it will
involve. There are no drawings and it is not stipulated where these land drains will be positioned – only a general
position is given on drawing 06.
There are no architect’s designs of what type of land drainage system is proposed, its size and dimension and on how
the land drainage will be installed without affecting existing buildings and structures. What will its impact be on the
environment? Are there any ecological issues, or will any wildlife be affected?
‘Existing FW flow from twin pumping system (4300L) with 24 hour backup system – system connected to existing
sewer’. I shrug my shoulders on this one, as I could not find any information at all and as none are supplied with the
application and can only surmise that it something to do with surface water control.
When completing the application form for application HS/FA/12/00952 the applicants is asked ‘How will surface
water be disposed of’? To which they have replied ‘Sustainable drainage system’ which conflicts with their proposal
now to connect into the sewerage system.
‘Paved areas serving disabled access and refuse collection to be drained into surface water system via gulleys’
Planning Legislation states ‘New developments must have an effective and robust surface water drainage system
which should not increase flood risk to adjacent properties or land and should be undertaken in accordance with SuDS
principles. It is vital that applicants consult with the Local Planning Authority at the Pre-Application stage’. There is
no information at all on the permitted planning approval 00952 about managing surface water, which as this was a
‘new standalone planning application’ should have been addressed in the initial stages, and not addressed post
decision and considered as part of an ‘amended’ planning application. In fact it is often quoted as a condition to
planning permission ‘Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul
sewerage and surface water disposal/management have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water’.
Southern Water still has not been consulted on the proposal to install surface water disposal even though this latest
application is on the table at the moment and is shortly due to be considered as an ‘amendment’ to the previously
approved plans.
Other policies, legislations and guidelines need to be considered:
Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS 25)
This sets out Government policy in England on development and flood risk. The main aim is to ensure that flood risk is
taken into account at all stages of the planning process to avoid placing developments in areas of flood risk or
exacerbating flood risk elsewhere as a result of development.
Surface Water Management Plan
This updated (March 2010) guidance document from DEFRA has been developed to inform local authorities on how to
2
approach the development of a surface water management plan particularly in areas of high risk of surface water
flooding.
Guidance on the permeable surfacing of front gardens
From 1 October 2008, the Government will introduce changes to the General Permitted Development Order, making
the hard surfacing of more than five square metres of domestic front gardens permitted development only where the
surface in question is rendered permeable.
The Building Regulations
SUDS systems fall under the remit of The Building Regulations’ Approved Document H: ‘Drainage and waste disposal’
for England and Wales and Part M ‘Drainage and sanitary facilities’ for Scotland. Compliance with the Building
Regulations will be required to achieve planning consent, local authority approval and sign off for most SUDS projects.
Full Application or Reserved Matters Application Requirements.
The following lists give an idea of the types of information required to accompany a drainage application. The list is
not exhaustive but gives a general indication of the information required. This will obviously vary on a site by site
basis.
Effectiveness Appraisal:
1. Flood Risk Assessment.
2. A description of the current surface water drainage arrangements for the site.
3. A location plan.
4. The proposed development layout drawing.
5. A description of the proposed surface water drainage system.
6. A brief summary of the SuDS incorporated with treatment stages highlighted.
7. The soil WRAP classification for the site.
8. Results of soil permeability testing.
The geotechnical report states ‘that it is presumed that various underground services including drainage and
freshwater services are present beneath this hard standing’ (areas of hard standing for access and parking exist within
the caravan park in the upper slope bordering the study area). ‘At this stage, the location and conditions of such
(private) drainage system and water supplies are not known’. Surely this does not meet with the list of requirements
needed to accompany a drainage application. As stated previously there is no description of the proposed surface
water drainage system.
The geotechnical report composed by Coffey state ‘As indicated above, slope stability in the study area is very
sensitive to groundwater level variations and it should be appreciated that services and changes at the caravan park
in the upper part of the slope could have had an influence on ground water level variations. They further state ‘that
further investigation is needed about the drainage from the property’.
3
The effect of the landslide has been played down by the council and it seems that as the geotechnical report did not
specifically blame the construction of the new development on the recent land slippage and flooding, that they are
not liable in any way. This does not exonerate them for the fact that insufficient land drainage has been provided in
the many hard surface areas on the site such as the additional hard standing for the eight illegal caravans within the
vicinity of the land slide.
The report states ‘This has a significant health and safety risk implications, with specific reference to users of the
caravan park and to human activity within the study area section of the Country Park close to the larger (and smaller
landslip). Hastings Borough Council has issued this caravan park with a licence, surely then it is the responsibility of
the council to ensure that health and safety issues are addressed, and not just state that having the provision of a
licence exonerates them from getting planning permission for additional roads and hard standing. New planning
regulations state that they have to conform to specific guidelines when installing hard standing and that they need
the provision of planning permission.
Power of local authority to attach conditions to site licences
(1) A site licence issued by a local authority in respect of any land may be so issued subject to such conditions as the
authority may think it necessary or desirable to impose on the occupier of the land in the interests of persons
dwelling thereon in caravans, or of any other class of persons, or of the public at large; and in particular, but
without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, a site licence may be issued subject to conditions—
(a) for restricting the occasions on which caravans are stationed on the land for the purposes of human habitation,
or the total number of caravans which are so stationed at any one time;
(b) for controlling (whether by reference to their size, the state of their repair or, subject to the provisions of
subsection (2) of this section, any other feature) the types of caravan which are stationed on the land;
(c) for regulating the positions in which caravans are stationed on the land for the purposes of human habitation
and for prohibiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating, the placing or erection on the land, at any time when
caravans are so stationed, of structures and vehicles of any description whatsoever and of tents;
(d) for securing the taking of any steps for preserving or enhancing the amenity of the land, including the planting
and replanting thereof with trees and bushes;
(e) for securing that, at all times when caravans are stationed on the land, proper measures are taken for preventing
and detecting the outbreak of fire and adequate means of fighting fire are provided and maintained;
(f) for securing that adequate sanitary facilities, and such other facilities, services or equipment as may be specified,
are provided for the use of persons dwelling on the land in caravans and that, at all times when caravans are
stationed thereon for the purposes of human habitation, any facilities and equipment so provided are properly
maintained.
Perhaps there should be question on whether their licence should be revoked as they have not complied with the
terms of their licence and have been siting additional caravans over and above the terms of their licence. The licence
states that it the council’s responsibility for taking steps to enhance the amenity of the land, including planting and
replanting of trees and bushes. The council has discriminately allowed the removal of trees, so that further illegal
caravans can be sited, and has allowed trees to be removed to afford the caravan site occupiers a better view of the
Country Park and the sea.
It is also stated that the layout of the caravan park should also be reviewed and subjected to further assessment, in
relation to long-term slope stability and risk mitigation. Has this been considered prior to the relocation of the eight
4
the caravans affected by the landslide, where are they to be located to – is more hard standing part of the plan to
move them? Will this have the effect of destabilising other areas of the site?
The geotechnical expert state ‘Further investigations should be undertaken in full co-operation with the
owners/managers of the Rocklands caravan park, to manage adverse impacts on the SSSI and SAC. To this end,
details of the existing drainage systems and freshwater supplies at the caravan park need to be investigated and
determined. Investigation should be carried out to determine the location and condition of all surface and subsurface drainage systems and fresh water services within the caravan park and (if any) extended into the study area’.
It has not been stipulated on what effect this could have on SSSI and SAC as it was initially presumed that works were
to be restricted to the footprint of the existing building. It is now obvious that the works are to be extended beyond
the perimeter of the building which takes it outside of the original approval. In this instance should ecology issues be
addressed to establish what the impact might be, and the relevant third parties invited to comment on the latest
proposal?
The council asked for this geotechnical report to be compiled so that they could consider their options and to clarify
the extend of the landslide and any further implications there might be, so it would make sense for them to take
heed of the recommendations made within the report and to withdraw the application on the table at the moment,
until the full extent of the problem, and its effect on the caravan site is confirmed.
This further information, requested by Coffey, needs to be supplied before any application relating the ‘sustainable
land drainage system’ is considered. This application has gone beyond ‘minor amendments’ to change the design of
the property, it now extends to development on unstable land and surely DG21 should now be a consideration,
especially in relation to the earth works and ‘sustainable land drainage system’. The geotechnical experts are
recommending, among other things, that no further earthworks or land drainage be undertaken on the site. They
require further information about the existing land drainage system and have recommended further tests. Surely, it
is wiser to allow time for this information to be gleaned, and to wait until bore hole tests and piezometer readings
are known to the council, before allowing this application to be determined.
This application needs to be withdrawn in its current form, and either resubmitted, only making reference to the
retrospective ‘additional changes’ proposed, which relate to the actual building only, or to withdrawn it completely
until the full extent of the land drainage and site stability is known.
Perhaps if the case officer dealing with discharging conditions 4 and 5 on application 000952 had been more vigilant,
and the applicants more up front, we would not now be faced with this current situation. The ‘amendments’ were
known to the council in October 2013 and the development then was only in its initial states.
5