Retrospective planning application HS/FA/20/00884 was refused by the Planning Committee in April, against officers’ advice. Seven months on it came back, rebadged as HS/FA/21/00712. The differences were truly trivial. As before, the officers recommended approval. How did the Committee respond? Bernard McGinley reports.
The Ore bloated mansion case (HS/FA/21/00712) still has discrepancies to be resolved. How many are there? How many retrospective applications is too many? What about the wall that breaches a local Parliamentary act and lacks necessary approvals? Bernard McGinley, who also took the photos, takes a look at both sides.
In 2017 a planning application for a large house in Ore was given approval by Hastings Borough Council (HBC) (ref HS/FA/17/00468 (‘468‘)), subject to certain conditions. The development as approved remains uncompleted. On the other hand, the building has features that lack planning permission. Following two refusals and two failed appeals, there’s a new application. Bernard McGinley reports.
HOT is run by volunteers but has overheads for hosting and web development. Support HOT!
Advertise your business or your event on HOT for as little as £20 per month
Find out more…
If you like HOT and want to keep it sustainable, please Donate via PayPal, it’s easy!
Do you want to write, proofread, edit listings or help sell advertising? then contact us
