Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 February 2017 were submitted and approved, subject to an amendment to minute 106 Mill Gap House, 2 Mill Gap Road, to reflect that the decision was one of approval by six votes to one abstention and not unanimous as stated.  The Chairman was authorised to sign them as an accurate record.

Councillor Robinson and Councillor Taylor.

There were none.

Proposed material change of use from residential care home (C2) to 9 residential dwellings (C3), with associated extensions at ground and first floors.New vehicular access from Denton Road and provision of seven parking spaces in front garden area – MEADS.

The committee was advised that the Chair of the Meads Neighbourhood Panel had submitted a further representation confirming that the objections to the original proposal still applied. The objections related to concerns about the removal of trees and insufficient parking associated with the proposal creating additional on street parking pressure.

The Meads Community Association had also confirmed that its original objections still applied. The objections related to concerns about the felling of the existing trees, inadequate off street parking and concerns about the impact of the development on the surrounding conservation area. 

Members were advised that the Specialist Advisor for Arboriculture had requested that condition 14 be amended to require planting plans to be submitted as part of the landscaping scheme to incorporate new trees to replace those that were to be lost as a result of this development.

Mr McEnnis addressed the committee in objection stating that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site.  He also stated that the car parking provision was inadequate and the loss of trees would be detrimental to the street scene.

Mr Langley, agent for the applicant, addressed the committee in response stating that the units exceeded national standards for living space and that a greater number of bedsits / one bedroom flats could be accommodated within the site.  He also stated that whilst the loss of tree screening was regrettable, it was essential to provide the proposed parking spaces.  A comprehensive landscaping scheme would be implemented should the application be approved.

The committee raised some concerns about the loss of the front boundary wall and was advised that the majority of the wall would be retained. Whilst Members were concerned about the parking issues in the vicinity, the committee was informed that the scheme had the support of East Sussex County Highways Department.

RESOLVED:  (By 4 votes to 3 with 1 abstention) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Development within three years 2) Development in accordance with the approved plans 3) You must provide the detailed drawings of the following parts of the development: Elevation of the retained boundary wall facing Denton Road - You must not commence works involving the conversion of the front forecourt to off street parking until we have approved what you have submitted and you must implement the development in accordance with details approved under the terms of this condition. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the reconstructed boundary wall has been completed in accordance with the requirements of this condition 4) You must provide detailed drawings (including elevations and sections at 1:10 minimum) of the following parts of the development: All new windows and doors - You must not remove any of the existing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

Demolition of existing community centre with change of use for a new build residential development comprising of 3 three bedroom properties. Previous application 161318 – MEADS.

The committee was advised that East Sussex County Council Highways Department had confirmed that the existing disabled parking bays located on Calverley Road adjacent to the site were not directly related to the WRVS centre and as such it would not be reasonable to require their removal as a result of this planning decision. In line with usual practice the need for the disabled bays would be kept under review by the Highway Authority. 

RESOLVED: (By 6 votes to 1 with 1 abstention) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions:1) Development in three years 2) Development in accordance with approved plans 3) Working hours (8-6 Monday to Friday, 8-1 Saturday) - You must provide the areas for waste storage shown on drawing number 16-1330 01 rev 5 prior to the occupation of the proposed development and these areas must be retained for the purposes of waste storage for the lifetime of the development 4) The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until an area for the purpose of cycle parking has been provided in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the area[s] shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of cycles 5) Prior to commencement of development a Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.  This shall include the identification of areas for storing materials, plant and machinery; areas for contractor parking clear of the highway; turning area; size of vehicles, routing of vehicles and hours of operation 6) The building shall not be occupied until the existing access off Calverley Road has been stopped up and the kerb and footway reinstated in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority 7) You must not occupy the development until the full extent of works shown on plan number 161330- 123 showing the retained elevation to 1a West street have been completed.

There were none.

1)   12 The Broadway.

2)   65 Moy Avenue.

1.   12 The Broadway.  The Inspector dismissed the appeal.

2.   65 Moy Avenue.  The Inspector allowed the appeal.

The committee considered the potential redevelopment of the former Police Station in Grove Road.

The committee was concerned about the scale and density of the proposed scheme.  Members also queried the capacity of the existing drainage / sewerage system and its ability to absorb an additional 50 flats.

The committee did not object to the principle of residential redevelopment at the site.  Whilst the scheme was proposed as a ‘zero’ parking development, Members requested that the applicant explore off street parking options.

NOTED.