Fate of bowls site is in the balance

Bexhill resident Anne-Marie Loader claims the proposal at the former Gullivers’ Bowls Club, Knole Road, will have significant environmental effects, including a risk of asbestos exposure for surrounding homes during demolition. However, she will have to wait to hear the outcome of her move.

On Friday May 27, she asked one of the country’s top judges, Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, to quash a Government decision that no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required in order for development to proceed.

Now the judge has reserved his decision and will give it in writing at a later date which has yet to be announced. The plan under the scheme is to provide the sheltered accommodation as well as an all-new outdoor bowls green, indoor rink and club facilities.

Ms Loader has asked the judge to order the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, to reconsider whether an EIA is required.

Applicant Churchill Retirement Living Ltd was initially refused planning permission by Rother District Council on the basis that the development would be out of character with the area, and detrimental to the streetscape, particularly an adjoining listed terrace.

An inspector then granted planning permission on appeal, but that decision was quashed by the High Court with the Secretary of State’s consent in June 2008 because the inspector had failed to make a screening opinion on whether EIA was required.

In July 2009, the Secretary of State reached the latest decision under challenge, that the proposal does not require an EIA, boosting Churchill’s chances of securing planning permission again.

However, in doing so, Ms Loader claims that he misinterpreted the term “significant” when assessing whether the proposal was likely to have significant environmental effects.

She also says that he gave inadequate scrutiny to the question of mitigation measures in respect of the impact of asbestos during demolition works.

She claims that the development will involve the handling and transport of substances such as asbestos that could be harmful to human health or the environment.

Lawyers for the government maintain that the Secretary of State did not apply the wrong test on significant environmental effects and that his decision should be upheld.