COMMUNITY PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE The Cliff Gardens Project - or how not to retire

John Morris

John worked for the London Borough of Sutton and was ACES President in 1999/2000, a position he held simultaneously as President of the Federation of Property Societies. He saw the millennium in with the ACES Spring Conference held in Bury St Edmunds and the Presidential Conference in Greenwich. In 2003, he moved to East Sussex County Council as Assistant Director.

John explains the tortuous hoops that need to be secured to undertake what might appear a simple community project. It also illustrates the value of having an experienced “retired” chartered surveyor to hand. 

Introduction 

This is a summary of a community project I am involved in, and the myriad hurdles which have had to be overcome. It perhaps illustrates why larger infrastructure projects routinely experience cost and time over-runs. 

I live in Seaford (population c24,000) on the south coast between Brighton and Eastbourne, surrounded by the South Downs National Park. Our long esplanade terminates at Splash Point below Seaford Head. The cliffs extend eastward, encompassing the well-known Severn Sisters, to Beachy Head. 

The Seven Sisters Trek from Seaford to Eastbourne along the cliffs is very popular. Just before entering the national park at Splash Point and the climb up Seaford Head, walkers have to pass Cliff Gardens, an unmade and pot-holed road which apart from being an eyesore, has been subject to encampments and anti-social activities. I was aware that the road had full highway rights of way as Seaford Town Council (STC) had attempted to prevent incursions, but East Sussex County Council (ESCC) as Highways Authority (HA) had told them that obstructions had to be removed. The C2 National Cycleway also transits the site. 

Looking north in good weather

Looking south in poor weather

 Location plan

In February 2021 I read an article in our monthly “Seaford Scene” magazine about a local community group seeking to create a “Climate Change, Educational Beach Garden” at Cliff Gardens. A contact for more information was provided, so I emailed that person, advising that unless they had sorted out ownership and title details, obtained any necessary planning consent and resolved any highways issues they would fail. The response was “Welcome aboard, come to our next meeting”. 

I learnt more about the project. It was to be one of five initiatives within a programme called Ouse Valley Climate Action led by the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA). This one was to focus on awareness of the particular local environment, the flora and fauna which can survive local conditions, and the potential impacts of climate change. The project was conceived and taken forward by a small group of folk from the Seaford Community Partnership (SCP). The chair of SCP led our project team, which numbered six including me. The chair also dealt with liaison with STC and other community groups in the town; others dealt with detailed design and botanical and horticultural matters concerning the seven different raised beds to feature in the project. I was to lead on resolving all the issues I had highlighted in my initial message to the chair. Serves me right. 

Ownership 

I was aware that Lewes District Council (LDC) had transferred its open spaces in Seaford to STC so I contacted the latter in March 2021 for details. In late August 2021, STC confirmed that Cliff Gardens was transferred to it on 18 December 2003, but the town council had never registered its title. There were no onerous restrictions in the title. 

Scheme development 

The SDNPA successfully bid for funding and grants were offered from the National Lottery, the government’s Shared Prosperity Fund and from the Community Infrastructure Levy. A brief was prepared and local landscape architects were invited to provide outline designs. A successful bid was accepted in September 2021. 

Drawing of the bid

Also in September 2021 I applied for pre-application advice from LDC as Local Planning Authority (LPA) as to whether we needed planning consent. Five months later in February 2022 planners confirmed we needed full consent for change of use, and stipulated the requirements of any application. 

A groundworks report was provided by STC which revealed a water main along the western boundary, an 11 Kw electricity main just over the eastern boundary, and a sewer and rising main both crossing the site. 

The planning application and highways advice 

A local firm conducted a laser survey of the site and prepared the required plans. 

The site is within an Archaeological Notification Area so I had to consult the County Archaeologist. They had no concerns. 

I had to prepare a Heritage Statement. The local museum was very helpful. Following various breaches of the sea defences, a better sea wall was built in the late 19th century, following which three elevated causeways were built linking this to the town, but were never surfaced. Cliff gardens is the easternmost of these. A scheme to develop the area between the causeways never happened. 

I submitted the application on 1 December 2022 and served the necessary notice on STC as landowner. It was validated on 6 February 2023. The usual consultation followed. A letter of support from the STC was submitted, and our chair came to agreement with STC as to how they could facilitate the project, including how they would hold funds and make payments so that VAT could be reclaimed. 

Submitted drawing

Respondents to the consultation in support were a greater number than those in opposition and included the nearby secondary school and a scout group. The main opponents were two of the usual subjects who peddled misinformation which others swallowed wholesale. 

As a statutory consultee, the HA was a key respondent. As shown on the plan submitted, the cycleway was proposed to be a 2-metre wide asphalt surface with a separate pedestrian path meandering through the 7 planters. Someone in the HA raised the point that if a class of 30 children was on the meander path, pedestrians may use the cycleway, so it would have to be a shared surface. The HA therefore required a 3-stage Road Safety Audit (RSA) i.e. at outline design, final design and as-built stages to be incorporated in the planning conditions. 

Exclusion of vehicular rights 

I had been in contact with the HA during 2021 as the project would require exclusion of vehicles from a stretch of the road. I initially tried contacting through the website, but contact details there seemed limited to reporting potholes or road lamp outages and nobody I spoke to knew who could help. As I had been an Assistant Director at ESCC, I knew the officer at the same grade who would have managerial responsibility for the relevant function, so I gave him a ring and he put me in touch with the relevant officer. A few of our team had a virtual meeting with the nominated officer in December 2021. 

I asked for a Traffic Regulation Order but it was explained that this would have to be prioritised behind other such requests and would initially be a temporary measure, which could lead to permanence. Instead, a Stopping-Up Order (SUO) was suggested. My experience before retiring was that it only took one objection to a SUO and a Public Inquiry was required, so I was averse to this. However I was told that the law had changed and this was no longer the case. 

We were told that SUOs were administered by the Department of Transport’s National Casework Team (NCT) and were assured that SUOs normally take a few months to go from application to advertising of the proposal. The application should be made in accordance with s249 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

Seemed OK. I looked into s249 of the Act. It provides that where the LPA considers it necessary in the interest of improving the amenity of an area, it can apply for the exclusion of the right of a class of vehicle to pass along a highway. 

This meant that the LPA had to make the application. 

I also established that the Act included s252 sub-section (5) which states: 

“If, in a case where the objection is made by a person other than such a local authority or undertakers or transporter, the Secretary of State is satisfied that in the special circumstances of the case the holding of such an inquiry is unnecessary he may dispense with the inquiry.” 

We considered the guidance on the NCT website. Any application under s249 should include details of a planning consent or suitable resolution of the LPA. We decided that the application would bear more weight if planning consent had been granted. 

We also decided that we needed to procure a Stage 1 RSA before finalising our design. So while our planning application was being processed, I sought the RSA and spoke to the planning officer about the LPA making the s249 application. 

The LPA had no knowledge of s249. I briefed the planning officer, who said “Oo-er, we don’t have delegated authority to make that application, we’ll have to consult on that”. I explained that we would already have two public consultations, one for the planning application and another on the proposed SUO. Having a third consultation would confuse and annoy the public. I suggested that should the Planning Applications Committee decide to grant planning consent, at the same meeting it gives delegated authority to the Head of Planning to make the s249 application. He agreed and said he would seek approval to include the necessary wording in his report to the committee. 

The Stage 1 Road Safety Audit 

This threw up a problem. I had looked at the route of the cycleway either side of our project. Some stretches were on local roads; others were segregated but never as wide as 2 metres. A short distance away the cycleway was signed over a footpath passing through farmland. 

The auditor disregarded all this. As the HA required the cycleway to be a surface shared with pedestrians, the current standard required that it be 3.5 metres wide. So we had to re-design our scheme. By moving or rotating some of our planters, we were able to meet the additional width of the cycleway. New plans were drawn up demonstrating how the various recommendations of the RSA could be met. 

The HA confirmed acceptance of the new proposal to the LPA while asking for a condition to be included requiring Stage 2 and 3 RSAs. This allowed the planning application to be reported to committee. 

The Planning Applications Committee 

The earliest meeting possible was 11 October 2023. The officer’s report recommended granting consent and also sought delegated authority to make the s249 application. 

The planning officer spoke to his report but displayed the pre-RSA Stage 1 plan to committee. 

Two of us from our team spoke in support, as did a resident whose house overlooks the site and one of the members of the committee. One of the two principal objectors also spoke. 

The committee unanimously agreed to grant consent. I spoke to the planning officer afterwards to point out his mistake with the plan. He said that the consent notice will feature the correct plan reference, which in due course it did. 

The s249 application 

I had now been two and a half years on the job and wondered how quickly the LPA would make the application. Some of our funding had timescales for spending which were approaching. 

I studied the NCT guidance and online application form and considered it fairly straightforward, so I emailed the LPA solicitor and asked if I could provide a first draft of the application. She seemed happy to accept my kind offer. 

So I had the required plan prepared and drafted an application and sent them to her. The only comment she had was to suggest that the plans displayed at committee were appended. I pointed out that the wrong plans were displayed and these were now at variance with the plans approved on the planning consent notice, which had by now been

issued. 

So my draft application was signed off unchanged and submitted to the NCT on 18 December 2023. On 22 January 2024, the NCT acknowledged receipt, said officers were very busy, and could not say when they would be able to appoint a case officer. Grrr! 

I wrote to my MP about this. She responded the next day to say that she would speak to the Secretary of State and a few days later, we had a case officer. 

The consultation – a second bite of the cherry for objectors 

The public notice of the application was made on 8 March 2024, with objections receivable until midnight 5 April 2024. 

The NCT forwarded objections to the LPA as applicant, for negotiations with the objectors. Guess what? The LPA sent them to me asking me to negotiate. 

Objectors included the person who spoke against at the planning committee, another serial complainant, and some others who came in on their coattails. There were two sensible objectors, the British Horse Society and a local retired chartered surveyor. I spoke to the area BHS representative (based in Warwickshire!) and explained that there are no stables south of the A259 which runs through Seaford, and no sighting or evidence of a horse having been down Cliff Gardens for decades. The Society withdrew its objection. The retired chartered surveyor and I had cordial negotiations (we both used the same pub) and he also withdrew his objection. 

The other objectors largely wouldn’t engage with me. Objections included: 

• It’s used by emergency vehicles 

• It’s an important road/access to the seafront 

• It has wild plants and flowers 

• Closure would cause gridlock and road rage 

• It has abundant wildlife 

• It lowers blood pressure and is a natural cure for everything under the sun. 

There were no objections from the emergency services or the utility companies. 

I reported back to the LPA and NCT, bringing to their attention that in the circumstances, the Secretary of State has discretion to dispense with the need for a public inquiry. Despite this, the NCT announced that a public inquiry would be held starting on 26 November 2024. 

Contractor procurement 

The 7 planters, Big Buoy Benches and fishbone sculptures were to be fabricated by the designer appointed in September 2021. We needed a contractor who could do the groundworks, asphalting of the cycleway, and the meander path through the planters. Colleagues researched the meander path and liked a product used at Kew Gardens and Wakehurst Place. 

Locally there were only two approved contractors for this, so bids were requested from each. A suitable bid was received in March 2024. 

The Public Inquiry 

Evidence took up a day but could have been over by lunchtime without our two steadfast objectors. The Highways officer gave us valuable support. The inspector announced her site visit for the following day. The objector that spoke to the planning committee and the inquiry wanted to accompany the inspector so to make things equitable, I did too. 

We waited for the outcome and in the meantime, I applied successfully for the discharge of the two pre-construction planning conditions regarding approval of the specification of the cycleway and the materials and colours to be used. 

The NCT confirmed the result of the inquiry on 24 January 2025. The s249 application was successful. We had to wait for the expiry of the judicial review period on 7 March 2025 before commencement of works. 

Intervention of the Town Council 

STC had just appointed a new town clerk who reneged on our agreements with his predecessor. He didn’t want involvement in making payments and questioned whether we had complied with procurement law or STC’s financial regulations. He commissioned an independent review of the project (the person appointed used the term “investigation”). The outcome would be reported to STC’s Full Council on 5 August 2025. We were not allowed sight of the independent review. 

The chair of our team met the reviewer and held discussions with SDNPA officers who were very supportive. This was a crucial turning point. SDNPA agreed to take on the funding and make payments, saving nearly £20,000, and also to project manage the construction. 

This was agreed at the 5 August meeting. A new Memorandum of Agreement was agreed between SDNPA, STC and SCP soon after. I had been worried that the various delays would cause the contractor’s quote to be reviewed upwards as it dated back to March 2024. In fact, the uplift was smaller than expected and the additional funds were found by SDNPA. 

Current position 

Work started on site on 24 September 2025. Now the ownership/title, planning and highways issues are sufficiently resolved, I am just another volunteer within SCP, although SDNPA wants me to be on hand for the RSA Stages 2 and 3, which have to be completed before opening the project to the public. 

There is no implied criticism in this article of the officers of Lewes District Council who worked hard on the planning application and in presenting to the public inquiry. It was clear, however, that they were under resourced. My sincere thanks go to them, ESCC Highways, SDNPA and to our designers and contractors. 

It is clear that the Department of Transport is risk adverse in deciding not to use the option to dispense with the need for a public inquiry. I think the LDC planning solicitor was right when she commented to me that they were probably worried about a judicial review on the grounds of denial of natural justice. 

Shared cycleway/footpath completed

Planter 1 under construction

Ed – John hopes to provide a short update when there is more to see. He anticipates completion in autumn 2026, but awaits an updated project plan.