The aims of the Hastings Planning & Heritage Watchdog are to:

• Ensure that planning policies, procedures and guidelines at government or local level, including those relevant to ecological and conservation issues, are followed;
• Work towards achieving transparency and accountability of officers and councillors;
• Generally strive for quality regeneration, including respect for heritage and for other buildings of merit that are not currently listed;
• Raise public awareness of the planning needs and concerns of the people of Hastings & St Leonards and reach, in particular, groups of residents in under-represented and/or minority communities; to show them how they may be respected and heard, to help them learn about the Local Plan, Local Development Framework and other relevant documentation and how they can effectively campaign for their rights;
• Hold meetings, as frequently as considered appropriate, at which general and individual cases may be discussed and advice given on what people can do if they wish to fight planning applications or generally contribute to improving the planning system either locally or nationally.

How did we start/what do we believe?

The Hastings Planning and Heritage Watchdog evolved when people across Hastings and St Leonards-on-Sea became aware that they were not alone in being subjected to what we feel could only be called an unfair planning system, i.e. one that does not follow Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and their predecessors, Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs). Hastings Borough Council (HBC) is supposed to follow the Local Plan; instead, as we see it, the planning department seem to make it up as they go along, picking and choosing between legislation and their own policy, interpreting things in a way that best shows benefit to their own budgets and/or the needs of developers, often riding roughshod over local views.

Good local government adheres to these planning statements and involves the community fairly. The Watchdog believes that HBC does not do this, resulting in a kind of lawlessness within the planning system, taking too much account of developers’ needs for profit. Many people think that there is evidence of maladministration within the planning system going back at least 20 years. But is it incompetence or manipulation? Whatever the cause, it is endemic and appears ingrained within the culture of our council, whichever political party might be in power.

So, what do we do about it/what do we want instead?

The Watchdog campaigns for a fairer planning system, with planners who adhere to planning statements and guidelines using the policies and procedures of the Plan, rather than breaking long lists of them. The current ‘the ends justify the means' approach that seems to have been adopted does not sit well with us. Why bother having a plan if the rules can be ignored?

The Watchdog strives to change things for the better.

We are not anti-development, despite accusations of being so, although we do admit to a preference for attractive, eco-friendly buildings with good facilities for those who will live in them, rather than those that make most profits for the developers. In the end, the Watchdog wants only what good planners say they also want:  the right housing in the right place. We are not saying don’t build, but build in appropriate places.

Along with more consideration in HBC’s dealings with the community, the Watchdog would like to see more probity within planning; councillors and officers have access to the East Sussex County Council report entitled ‘Probity in Planning’ and we hope to see more evidence of its being followed.

And what about emotions?

Apart from the obvious despair many feel knowing that planning applications, if passed, will seriously affect their wellbeing, it is also unacceptable that HBC are able to ignore needs, that there is arrogance in the  'us-and-them' and ‘we-know-best’ attitudes often displayed during dealings with them. There is also a sort of Catch 22 situation; for instance, the NIMBY label may be suggested if you live close to a development and have objections, but these are the only people likely to be notified of such development. On the other hand, people who do not live in the immediate vicinity, and therefore cannot be accused of NIMBYism, may have their views dismissed as irrelevant, despite the fact that all people who live in the Borough have the right to care about what happens to their town. And if the old labels don’t fit, new ones may be applied, such as “unruly mobs”, “persistent objectors”, claims from officers that they feel too intimidated to visit sites as they may be heckled, or worse. Such labels are grossly unfair and uncalled for. It is yet a further example of how the public feels disenfranchised.

This website shows evidence of historic areas and buildings being destroyed and wildlife unlawfully killed, along with campaigns run by members of the public who feel they have been treated unfairly and who have suffered, and continue to suffer, great distress and feelings of powerlessness as a result.