What is this about?
This is a summary of our response to the new documents submitted for the proposed development on The Ridge, Hastings, at Sandrock Bends, next to the St. Helen’s Woods Local Nature Reserve, following the submission of revised and additional documents by the developer.
It’s important to note that these are not new objections. They build on our original objections – which still stand – and have not been resolved. After carefully reviewing the revised plans, and consulting with experts in the fields of ecology, planning and hydrology, we believe the key problems for the St. Helen’s Woods nature reserve remain.
Please use this information as reference for your own objections to Hastings Borough Council which must be made by February 12th HERE. We urge you to make your comments personal to you, simple and direct.
Key Concerns – at a glance
Despite changes to the application, the proposals still raise serious concerns about:
- Flood risk and surface water drainage
- Damage to the St. Helen’s Woods Local Nature Reserve
- Loss of wildlife, biodiversity and connectivity
- Inadequate ecological surveys
- Overdevelopment of an environmentally sensitive site
- Failure to meet planning policy requirements
Flooding and Drainage: Why This Still Matters
The original plan relied on deep soakaways, which were rejected by the East Sussex County Council. The developer now proposes to:
- Collect rainwater on site
- Store it in a basin
- Release it slowly into a public surface water sewer
Why this is still a problem:
Although the sewer itself may have capacity, that is not the whole picture:
- The sewer eventually discharges into a local watercourse that already lies in a high flood-risk area
- The development would send more water, more often into that system than happens naturally
- Controlling the speed of water release does not deal with the total volume of water over time
Before development, most rainwater would soak into the ground. After development, hard surfaces like roofs and roads mean far more water is collected and piped directly into the drainage network.
Serious technical flaws have been identified – independent drainage experts commissioned by St. Helen’s Park Preservation Society have found that:
- The developer’s own modelling shows flooding on the site
- The modelling only covers part of the drainage system
- There is no evidence the system could cope with repeated storms
- A key calculation error was found, meaning the drainage system appears more effective on paper than it would be in reality
Bottom line on flooding
The revised plans do not show that flood risk would be avoided, either on the site or downstream. This directly conflicts with national planning policy and local flood-risk requirements — a view shared by East Sussex County Council as the lead local flood authority, which continues to object.
Impacts on St. Helen’s Woods Local Nature Reserve
St. Helen’s Woods is a protected Local Nature Reserve and local wildlife site. We remain deeply concerned that the revised application still fails to protect the woods and meadows.
Main issues in the new plans include:
- Poor understanding of the reserve’s location, size and sensitivity
- No proper assessment of how changes to drainage could affect:
- Springs
- Ponds
- Water flows that support wildlife
- Reduction in connectivity – a proposed wildlife corridor that is too narrow to function properly
- Long-term fragmentation of habitats
- Heavy reliance on off-site biodiversity credits instead of protecting nature on site
Expert Ecologist Concerns Ignored
The County Ecologist has previously submitted a detailed 69-point response raising major objections. These include:
- Failure to assess how altered water flows could harm the Nature Reserve
- Failure to address loss of wildlife connectivity
- Inadequate buffers between development and sensitive habitats
- A significant net loss of biodiversity on site
- Incorrect classification of woodland habitats
- Missing or insufficient surveys for protected species such as bats and great crested newts
None of these issues have been properly addressed in the revised documents.
Other Specific Ongoing Problems
We has also identified several specific concerns, including:
- Japanese Knotweed – this was observed on site as recently as July 2025, despite claims it is no longer present
- Existing hedgerows may have been misclassified, understating biodiversity loss
- A proposed sewage pumping station would be located close to a main badger set
- Recommended monthly bat surveys do not appear to have been carried out
- Increased tree and habitat loss linked to new access routes has not been properly reassessed
Biodiversity Net Gain: Going Backwards, Not Forwards
Instead of improving biodiversity outcomes:
- The revised proposals show a greater on-site biodiversity loss than before
- Changes to layout and access appear likely to increase damage
- Updated tree and habitat impacts have not been fully assessed
This approach conflicts with both planning policy and legal duties to protect wildlife.
Wider Planning Policy Problems
The application also continues to fail on broader planning grounds, including:
- Insufficient affordable housing
- Inappropriate use of an outline application on a sensitive site
- Lack of evidence for required transport improvements
- Overdevelopment that harms landscape, heritage and ecological value