Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 May 2016 were submitted and approved and the Chairman was authorised to sign them as an accurate record.

Councillors Jenkins, Miah and Robinson.

There were none.

Canopy structure over external 'valeting area' attached to existing building, constructed of acoustic blocks (painted white) to South Eastern flank only with clear corrugated sheet plastic roof supported by wooden beams. Fluorescent lighting would be installed to the inside of the canopy structure. Also proposed is the addition of timber hit and miss privacy fencing along boundary to match height of existing acoustic fence – ST ANTHONYS.

Mrs Bowen addressed the committee stating that whilst she was in favour of the proposed structure she would prefer the privacy fence to be higher than the acoustic fence.  In addition Mrs Bowen queried the operation times and requested the outside lighting be switched off after 6pm.

The committee was advised that the Council had pursued matters in relation to external lighting at the site.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Time for commencement 2) Approved drawings 3) No external lighting 4) Materials as stated on plans/application form.

Extension to the front of the existing dwelling and a roof raise loft conversion – MEADS.     

RESOLVED: (Unanimous)That permission be refused on the grounds that 1) By virtue of the resulting increases in height, size and scale of the property, the development is considered to be unneighbourly and overbearing and out of scale with the neighbouring property and would lead to significant loss of residential amenity through loss of privacy to surrounding residential occupiers as a result of significant additional glazing to the flank elevations, and the construction of a raised decking platform to a height of first floor level located to the rear of the property which does not accord with policies HO20 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan (Saved Policies) and policy B2 of the Eastbourne Core Strategy Local Plan 2) The resulting development would be visually dominant, whose appearance would be out of character within the Area of High Townscape Value and therefore would not accord with policies UHT1, UHT4 and UHT16 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan (Saved Policies) and Policies B2, D10 and D10a of the Eastbourne Core Strategy Local Plan.

Appeal:

Should the applicant appeal the decision the appropriate course of action to be followed, taking into account the criteria set by the Planning Inspectorate, was  considered to be written representations.

Two storey rear extension, garage extension and demolition of existing detached garage – RATTON.

The committee was advised that Mr and Mrs Corke of 29 Upper Kings Drive had contacted the Council to advise that they would withdraw their objection to the proposal if the conditions suggested by the Council’s Arboriculturalist were applied to any approval.

The Specialist Advisor for Arboriculture stated that ‘the proposed extension’s southern wall was in very close proximity to three of the trees within the adjacent Beech hedge.  Although the hedge should not be considered a constraint to development it was a vital screen to the proposed extension and therefore if indicated as retained some conditions would be required should the application be approved.  In addition he queried whether a condition should be attached to retain a hedge that may be owned by 29 Upper Kings Drive. If the Council were to attach a condition to the hedge then it would have implications on the owner of 29 Upper Kings Drive and their ability to undertake maintenance works or indeed remove the hedge should they wish to do so.  Due to the existing hard standing patio area, retainer wall and swimming pool cabinet situated in the location indicated for the proposed foundation of the side wall, it would be unlikely to find substantial roots in this area.  Although root damage to the closest part of the hedge was unlikely the concern was that there may be damage to the canopy and the loss of the screen by means of facilitating the access required to build the extension including space required for scaffolding.  Although under common law the applicant was entitled to prune the hedge back to the boundary at present, he suggested that the applicant tie the hedge back away from the proposed extension and scaffolding in order to maintain the screen after development.  The Specialist Advisor for Arboriculture suggested additional conditions which were incorporated into the resolution below (conditions 7 to 15).

Mr Corke addressed the committee in objection stating that they did not wish to withdraw their objection to the scheme and that any groundwork would potentially damage the well established Beech hedge.  Mr Corke also expressed concern regarding the proposed side wall stating that it would appear more ‘industrial’ than residential due to its size and proximity to his property.

Mr Pesce, applicant, responded stating that the planning department had been fully consulted throughout the design of the extension at pre-application stage and that he was happy to adhere to the additional conditions proposed by the Specialist Advisor for Arboriculture.  Mr Pesce agreed that the protection of the trees would benefit both his property and the neighbouring property’s outlook.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before theexpiration of three years from the date of this permission 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordancewith the following approved drawings submitted on 23/03/2016:

DWG.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Erection of five beach huts on the eastern seafront promenade – DEVONSHIRE.

At their meeting on 24 May 2016 the Conservation Area Advisory Group welcomed the principle of contemporary design within the conservation area. The group expressed concerns about the longevity of the structures to be created and their potential to act as a focus for anti-social behaviour.

Additional comments from residents were reported as follows:

160542 (Site 1 - Re-bourne)

One further objection had been received on the grounds that the proposed building did not respect its historic setting and the Town Centre and Seafront Conservation Area, and detracted from the pre- eminence of the pier within this part of the seafront.

160544 (Site 2 - The Spyglass)

One further objection had been received expressing concerns that the proposal would add to clutter on the seafront and failed to respect the setting and character of the conservation area.  There was a concern that the costs involved would not enable a successful building to be delivered on the site to enable the realisation of the architectural concept behind the proposal.

160534 (Site 3 - What unearthed?)

One further letter of support had been received citing the benefits of additional facilities on the eastern part of the seafront.  The applicant had now submitted detailed plans showing the maximum height of the building at 2.8 metres, the plans were also available on the Council’s website.

160566 (Site 4 - Community beach hut)

One further letter of support had been received stating that the proposal was simple and authentic.

160563 (Site 5 - Stargazers cabin)

One further objection had been received stating that the cabin would harm the setting of the recently constructed beach huts on this part of the promenade creating further clutter. Concerns was also expressed stating that the design concept relied on pedestrian footfall after dark which was not apparent at present, and also that the proposal would result in additional competition for existing businesses on this part of the seafront.

Councillor Bannister, Ward Councillor, addressed the committee stating that as part of the Driving Devonshire Forward project a consultation exercise had taken place, the results of which indicated the desire for some additional ‘beach huts’ in various locations east of the pier.  A number of designs had been received and the proposals before the committee were chosen from the short list.  This was a community project that would be of great benefit to tourists and the residents of Eastbourne.

Members discussed the application and whilst there was support for the scheme, some concern was raised with regard to two of the locations proposed.

RESOLVED (160542, 160534): (By 6 votes to 1)That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Development within three years 2) Development in accordance with approved plans 3) Drainage & Utility connections shall be operational prior to the first beneficial occupation of the beach huts.

RESOLVED (160544, 160566, 160563): (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

The proposed development involves the conversion of three existing shop units along Seaside and Seaside Road to a flexible use comprising a café space, employment/training space, print works and workshop/art space – DEVONSHIRE.

RESOLVED (160511,160512, 160513): (Unanimous)That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Development within 3 years 2) Development in accordance with the approved plans 3) You must not undertake any activities within the proposed development that would create noise that is audible outside the boundary of the site/property between the hours of 10pm and 8am daily.

Informative

This decision notice hereby authorises a mixture of uses as described in the approved plan entitled ‘The Devonshire Collective: A creative hub cluster proposal for Eastbourne’.  It was accepted that the uses could flux between all described in the application and across all the sites.

Demolition of the existing Fitness Centre adjacent to College Road (incorporating former bandstand). Erection of a Tennis Players Village Building (666m2), Plant Room, PV Panels and Associated Hard & Soft Landscaping Works – MEADS.

The committee was advised that page 54 of the report stated that ‘Historic England and the Eastbourne Society both noted that the long term success and durability of the building would depend on the choice of timber cladding’. Members were advised that both Historic England and the Eastbourne Society were concerned about the principle of using timber to clad this building and would prefer that the building was faced in brick to match the other buildings within the Western Cluster and the Devonshire park complex more broadly.

A further consultation response had been received from Southern Water who did not object to the proposal but had requested a condition requiring further details of foul and surface water disposal from the development. This had already been included as draft condition 7 on the decision notice.

Mr Howell, Eastbourne Society, addressed the committee in objection raising concerns regarding the loss of the original bandstand and requesting that any salvageable items be kept, with the possibility of being relocated elsewhere on the site.  He also expressed concern regarding the proposed timber cladding to the new building due to its limited lifespan.

The committee discussed the application and whilst they did not like the timber cladded effect, it was preferable to a bare pre fabricated building.  They agreed that the red colour of the new cedar cladding would be more appropriate to the ‘weathered’ sliver look and requested that a maintenance condition be added to retain its original colour.

RESOLVED: (By 6 votes to 1)(Councillor Taylor voted against the application) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions:1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of permission. 2) You must implement this planning permission in accordance with the following plans approved as part of this planning permission:(TBC)3) The following details must be submitted to and approved by the local authority: A) A demolition method statement shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority demonstrating how the two existing heritage electric lampposts located on the site are to be dismantled and how the bandstand will be recorded prior to the clearance of the site in advance of redevelopment.  You must not start work on any demolition of the site or existing buildings connected to the implementation of this planning permission until we have approved what you have sent us. You must implement the planning permission in accordance with the details that we have approved under the terms of this condition.  B) A schedule of the salvaged material (from the bandstand) shall be forwarded to the Local Planning Authority as soon as is practicable following the demolition of the structure and no later than the first occupation of the building hereby approved.  C) Any salvaged material  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Proposed demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 3 storey 58 bed care home (use class C2) – OLD TOWN.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Time 2) Approved Drawings 3) Hours of demolition and construction 4) Local Labour 5) No bonfires 6) External plant or equipment to be erected on or within the building to include noise impact  survey 7) Samples of materials (Notwithstanding the details shown on the plans hereby approved the roof tile shall be orange/red to match those that form the predominant  character of the area) 8) Kitchen extraction location 9) Drainage strategy detailing foul and surface water to include SUDs 10) Lighting strategy 11) Details of retained and proposed areas of environmental merit (retained embankment) 12) Boundary treatments and landscaping 13) Submission of details of retaining walls to the bank adjacent to 50 East Dean Road and 2 Downside Close 14) Remediation strategy to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site 15) Verification report relating to remediation strategy for contaminated land 16) Contamination found during development 17) No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted 18) Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted 19) Traffic Management Scheme for demolition and construction 20) Prior to occupation, turning space for vehicles in-line with drawing 21) Prior to occupation, parking areas must be provided in accordance with approved plans 22) Cycle parking areas 23) Vehicle wheel washing equipment 24) Travel Plan Statement, prior to commencement of development (for operational staff) 25) Protection of existing trees (off site in Longland Road and street trees) 26) Protection of retained trees (on site) 27) Detailed plans of services in relation to trees 28) No contaminated material to be deposited at the site

Informative:

1.       Formal application for connection to public sewerage system

2.       Formal agreement with Southern Water regarding infrastructure

3.       Badger survey

4.       Nesting birds

AMENDED SCHEME: Proposed demolition of existing garages and development of 6 no.3 bedroomed houses together with parking spaces (Design amended - roof design altered and elevational changes) – ST ANTHONYS.

The committee was advised that amended plans had been submitted which pivoted the terrace of plots 1-4 slightly to increase the space available to the front of the property and access path. These plans also updated existing and proposed ground levels.  The slight amendment to plots 1-4 increased the space to the front of the building by approximately 0.3m, an alternative form of buttressing to the boundary wall was also proposed to increase the width of the path. It was not considered that this amendment overcame concerns raised in the report.  Members were advised that the access road to the site was in flood zones 2 and 3; however the part of the site to be developed was not.

Additional comments from neighbouring properties were reported as follows:

Not opposed to housing development on the site in principle however they felt that a lack of detail had been provided.  There were concerns regarding the amount of traffic on access road, lack of detail regarding turning of vehicles, and impact on wildlife.

The building would clean up the area with less parked cars on the road and provide needed housing with a reduction in traffic.

The retention of the boundary wall in its entirety, high level windows and use of obscure glazing address previously raised privacy concerns. These revisions made the development an asset to the area and would improve the amenities for residents.

Mr Coulsey addressed the committee on behalf of no.s 1-4 and 6-14 Fitzmaurice Avenue, stating that all previous objections to the original scheme had been addressed.  The current usage caused considerable antisocial behaviour and the new development would resolve this.

The committee considered the application and agreed that the wall to the front of plots three and four was unusually high, however they were mindful that the applicant had worked hard to mitigate residents concerns and that the scheme before them was supported by many of the neighbouring properties.

RESOLVED:  (By 5 votes to 1 with 1 abstention) That delegated authority be given to the Senior Specialist Advisor Planning, in consultation with the Chairman, to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions.

Report of Senior Specialist Advisor for Planning.

The committee considered the report of the Senior Specialist Advisor for Planning outlining the responses received to the consultation on the Good Practice Guidance for Local Heritage Assets.

The draft document had been reported to Planning Committee and Conservation Area Advisory Group in 2015.  The public consultation had now been concluded with five representations received.

These were detailed in the table of responses document and the guidance document which were appended to the report.  As a result of the responses received officers had concluded that only typographical changes to the document were required.

RESOLVED: 1) That delegated authority be given to the Senior Specialist Advisor for Planning to implement any typographical changes required.

2) That the adoption of the document for use in assessing local heritage assets be endorsed.

Report of Senior Head of Regeneration, Planning and Assets.

The committee considered the report of the Senior Head of Planning, Regeneration and Assets providing Members with background and context to the issue of Tourist Accommodation retention and to identify potential areas of change.

As one of the largest providers of tourist accommodation in the South East outside London, and having the 16th highest supply of hotel rooms in the country, it was important that a seaside resort like Eastbourne had the right quality and quantity of tourist accommodation because it was important to the local economy.  The current policy had been applied for development management purposes since the adoption of the local plan in 2003 and it was therefore considered that given the changing holiday and general economic market in the intervening years that a review of the effectiveness of this policy was undertaken.

The report detailed the tourist accommodation provision in Eastbourne, and a map of the Tourist Accommodation Area (TAA) was attached at appendix 1 of the report.

The existing policy on the retention of Tourist Accommodation came from the saved policies from the Eastbourne Borough Plan 2001-2011 (adopted 2003).  It was intended that the Assessment of Financial Viability of Tourist Accommodation SPG would be replaced by a new Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that would provide an updated interpretation of Policy TO2 referred to at paragraph 4.3 of the report.

A Tourist Accommodation Study was completed by consultants Acorn Tourism Consulting Ltd in 2015.  The study considered that there was an oversupply of lower quality accommodation, particularly that which had previously catered for the coaching market. This oversupply meant that average occupancy levels fell as the lower quality accommodation reduced their prices to attract custom, which in turn meant other providers needed to reconsider their pricing. This ultimately drove down the average room rate and occupancy levels, particularly during the low season, and meant that owners were unable to continue to invest in the maintenance and upkeep of the property resulting in a downward spiral of poorer quality stock.  This had implications on how visitors perceived Eastbourne in terms of the quality of their visit and the likelihood of them returning or providing recommendations, and also on how investors perceived Eastbourne. This restricted the ability of the town to diversify the tourist accommodation offer to attract a broader range of visitors to Eastbourne thereby enhancing the destination’s overall competitiveness.  The report outlined the issues highlighted as part of the survey as follows:

·         An oversupply of poor quality accommodation in less prominent positions

·         The loss of substantial amounts of tourist accommodation could weaken  the town's ability to retain its status as a tourism destination

·         The protection of the character of the seafront

·         Policies needed to be well defined, economically realistic and able to be applied consistently

·         Removal of ‘hope’ value to encourage owners to run their businesses effectively

At this stage it was not possible for a new policy to be created, although the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) could provide a new interpretation on what was required in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Report of Senior Specialist Advisor for Planning.

The committee considered the report of the Senior Specialist Advisor for Planning which provided a summary of the current policies and guidance available to assess the replacement of windows through the planning process.

It had become apparent in determining applications for the replacement of windows through the planning process that the Council had  little supporting guidance available to officers, planning agents, business owners and home owners relating to the maintenance, repair, replace and aesthetic value associated with traditional windows.  In response a document had been produced in an attempt to amalgamate the relevant national and local policies and supplementary guidance referred to as part of the planning process when assessing the replacement or renewal of windows. 

This document had been reported to the Local Plan Steering Group and Conservation Area Advisory Group prior to being reported to Planning Committee.  A copy of the Conservation Area Advisory Group report and the guidance document was appended to the report for information.  The guidance document was being reported to Planning Committee unaltered with the view to gathering a pool of responses against a common document.

RESOLVED: 1) That delegated authority be given to the Senior Specialist Advisor for Planning to implement any typographical changes required 2) That the production of an executive summary to accompany the document be delegated to the  Senior Specialist Advisor for Planning 3) That the creation of a draft Planning policy document providing greater clarity in the assessment of planning applications for replacement windows be delegated to the Senior Specialist Advisor for Planning 4) That the guidance document and supplementary information be referred to Cabinet to seek their endorsement for  a six week consultation period.

There were none.

1) 24 Sevenoaks Road.

2) 46 Hardy Drive.

3) 51 Upperton Lane.

1) 24 Sevenoaks Drive.  This appeal was dismissed.

2) 46 Hardy Drive. This appeal was dismissed.

3) 51 Upperton Lane.  This appeal was dismissed.

NOTED.