Agenda and minutes

Eastbourne Borough Council Planning Committee - Tuesday, 30th May, 2017 6.00 pm

Venue: Town Hall, Eastbourne

Contact: Local Democracy on 01323 410000 

No. Item


Minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2017. pdf icon PDF 76 KB


The minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2017 were submitted and approved and the Chairman was authorised to sign them as an accurate record.




Apologies for absence.


Councillor Taylor and Councillor Jenkins.




Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPIs) by members as required under Section 31 of the Localism Act and of other interests as required by the Code of Conduct.


Councillor Coles advised the Chairman that she would withdraw from the room whilst applications 6 Central Methodist Church, Langney Road and 8 St Andrews United Reform Church, Cornfield Lane, were considered.  In her previous role of Mayor of Eastbourne, Councillor Coles openly supported the proposal and therefore stated that she had predetermined her decision on this scheme.




Central Methodist Church, Langney Road. Application ID: 170036. LB:170033. pdf icon PDF 104 KB


Conversion of existing meeting rooms and hall into 10no. one bedroom flats together with the retention of the existing worship space (to be read in conjunction with Listed Building Consent ref. 170033) – DEVONSHIRE.


Members were advised that this scheme promoted the conversion into ten self-contained units and was therefore below the affordable housing threshold. Given this Members agreed to amend recommendation 1 be amended to remove the reference to affordable housing requirement.


NB: Councillor Coles withdrew from the room whilst this item was considered.


RESOLVED (A): (Unanimous)That permission be granted subject to a S106 agreement covering local labour employment initiatives and the following conditions: 1) Time limit 2) Approved drawings 3) Schedule/specification of external repairs 4) Demolition and construction method statement outlining:

        Building/window recording prior to demolition

        How salvaged materials will be removed/stored and reused

        Hours of operation

        Site storage and welfare facilities

        Routes for demolition and construction vehicles

        Parking regimes for construction workers vehicles

5) Cycle parking provided and made available before use commences 6) Refuse/recycling before the uses commences


RESOLVED (A)LB 170033:  (Unanimous)That Listed Building permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Time limit 2) Approved drawings 3) Schedule/specification of external repairs 4) Demolition and construction method statement outlining:

        Building/window recording prior to demolition

        How salvaged materials will be removed/stored and reused

        Hours of operation

        Site storage and welfare facilities

        Routes for demolition and construction vehicles

        Parking regimes for construction workers vehicles

5) Cycle parking provided and made available before use commences 6) Refuse/recycling before the uses commences




93 Pevensey Bay Road. Application ID: 170239 (PPP). pdf icon PDF 65 KB


Demolition of Existing 102 Bed Care Home, Erection of new 80 Bed Care Home – ST ANTHONYS.


RESOLVED (A): (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the case being referred to HSE for a 21 day period to ascertain whether they want to call the application in for Secretary of State approval.


RESOLVED (B): (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to no call in being received from the HSE and a S106 agreement covering Local Employment initiatives and the following conditions: 1) Commencement of development within three years 2) Compliance with approved plans 3) Hours of operation (construction works) 4) Wheel washing facilities

5) Retention of tree/vegetation adjacent to Langney Sewer & protection during construction 6) Provision of landscape maintenance programme 7) Hedgerow removal outside of bird nesting season 8) Amphibian Mitigation strategy 9) Amphibian  restoration strategy 10) Construction and Environment mitigation strategy 11) Surface water run off 12) details of attenuation tanks 13) Maintenance programme for surface water system 14) Details confirm implementation of surface water details 15) No development within 3m either side of the exiting sewers at the site 16) Foul water disposal details 17) Existing Access onto the Roundabout to closed up such that it cannot be used 18) Car parking in accordance with details 19) Cycle parking in accordance with details 20) Vehicle turning shall be provided prior to occupations 21) Highway construction management plan 22) Travel plan 23) Landscaping planting scheme implemented prior to occupation 24) Details of service runs in connection with retained trees 25) Tree protection 26) Existing ground levels around saved trees shall not be altered 27) Development in accordance with the submitted FRA




St Andrews United Reformed Church, Cornfield Lane. Application ID: 170156 (PPP). pdf icon PDF 120 KB


Demolition of St Andrews Church and Albury House behind retained facade to Blackwater Road. Construction of 3-4 Storey building comprising 36 residential units and 11 parking spaces accessed from Wish Road and Cornfield Lane – MEADS.


Mr Jones addressed the committee in objection stating concern regarding the lack of car parking, waste collection and access to the lane.


Mrs Williams addressed the committee in objection stating concern regarding traffic and access to Wish Lane, the lack of car parking and waste collection.


Mr Hollobone addressed the committee stating that he liked the retention of the front façade and that the roof should be retained as is.  He raised concern about the lack of parking and access during the development.


Mr Winch, architect, addressed the committee in response stating that all concerns could be dealt with via condition and that the bin storage location could be reconsidered.


Members were advised that the following information had been received:

Transport Statement: An updated transport assessment of the impact of the proposal had been received and drew the following conclusions:


·         A parking survey had been undertaken which found that parking stress on the roads surrounding the site was low at 55%. During the parking survey, there were a total of 191 free car parking spaces which comprised 109 resident permit bays, 48 single yellow line parking spaces and 34 unrestricted parking spaces.

·         Refuse collection would be from the kerbside in the same manner as other existing properties.

·         Town Centre location and was highly sustainable, close to goods and services and other modes of transport.

·         Proposed flats would result in vehicle trips of less than one vehicle every eight  minutes and less than the existing lawful use as a church.

·         In NPPF terms the impacts of the scheme could not be regarded as severe.


A letter of support had been received as follows:


I am pleased to see residential in lieu of dilapidated church, given small dwellings are  unlikely to have the same car needs as families.

A letter of objection had also been received as follows:

‘My major interest in this application is as the adjoining land and business owner of a long established and well known specialist motor sales and repair business.


My property lies close to the development and in general I welcome the renovation of the empty church premises and the improvement of a deteriorating building


I welcome the refurbishment within the existing building envelope, and that redevelopment is not being considered. But I have three main concerns which I would like to express, and for them be taken into account in making your decision tonight.


Firstly, I am very concerned that full vehicular access to my business is maintained throughout the construction period.  Obviously, unimpeded street access is critical, and even a brief interruption would be unacceptable and lead to a potential loss of trade from passing custom as well as booked appointments.


Secondly, I am concerned at the number of units which are planned.  36 units seems to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.


Update on Housing Delivery. pdf icon PDF 111 KB

Report of Director of Planning, Strategy and Regeneration.



The committee considered the report of the Director of Regeneration and Planning providing Members with an update on recent housing delivery at the end of the 2016/2017 financial year.


The Core Strategy (adopted 2013) planned for the delivery of 5,022 net additional dwellings between 2006 and 2027. As of the end of 2016/17, a total of 2,576 units had been delivered since the start of the plan period. This left 2,446 units to be delivered until the end of the plan period at an annual average of 244.6 units per year.


Falling housing delivery rates over recent years had meant that the total number of units that had been delivered was now less than the cumulative target. At this point in the plan period, 2,640 units should have been delivered, so actual delivery was 64 units short of the number of houses that should have been delivered at this point in the plan.


In the 2016/17 year, a total of 203 net additional dwellings had been completed, compared to an annual target of 240 new dwellings per year. Those 203 net dwellings were provided across 48 sites. The highest number of dwellings was completed in Quarter 4.  During the 2016/17 financial year, a total of 305 net additional units were granted permission across 79 sites. By comparison, a total of 246 units were committed in 2015/16.


Of the 305 units granted permission, 91 units were committed through changes of use of office to residential at 20 Upperton Road (56) and 2 St Anne’s Road (35).  64 sites (81%) were granted permission of less than 5 unit, with 33 sites (42%) being granted permission for just one additional unit.


It had been identified that a total of 173 net additional units across 25 development sites were refused planning permission in 2016/17. A list of these refusals was attached to this report within Appendix 2.  Members recognised that not all of the units granted permission would be built. Evidence over the Core Strategy plan period (since 2006) suggested that 76% of units granted permission were completed. At a 76% delivery rate, meeting the Core Strategy target of 240 units per year would require 316 units to be granted permission each year.


Members were advised that the Housing White Paper proposed the introduction of a new Housing Delivery Test on local authorities from November 2017. The test would identify the number of houses built against the housing target over a rolling three year period


If during the first assessment period the delivery of housing fell below 95% of the target, local authorities would be required to publish an action plan setting out an understanding of the key reasons for the situation and the actions that could be taken to get home-building back on track. Where local authorities were delivering less than 85% of their housing target action would also be required to add a 20% buffer to their Five Year Housing Land Supply calculation.


An analysis of housing delivery over the first assessment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.


Summary of performance of the Planning Department Quarter 1 2017 (Jan - Mar). pdf icon PDF 214 KB

Report of the Senior Specialist Advisor (Planning).



The committee considered the report of the Senior Specialist Advisor for Planning which provided a summary of performance for the first quarter of 2017 (January to March).


Given the many varied types of planning applications received, central Government required all Councils to report performance in a consistent and coherent manner. To this end the many varied applications were combined together into three broad categories Major, Minor and Other.  Government had recently amended the criteria for the assessment of the Council’s performance which was detailed in the section regarding special measures within the report.


The report detailed the following elements:


Special Measure Thresholds – Looking at new government targets

Planning Applications – Comparing volumes/delegated and approval rates

Pre Application Volumes – Comparison by type and volume over time

Refusals of Applications – Comparison of ward and decision level

Appeals – An assessment the Council’s appeal record over time

Planning Enforcement – An assessment of volumes of enforcement related activity.


Members were aware that Government had recently introduced new National performance criteria against which all Council’s would be judged. Failure to perform against those targets ran the risk of the Council be designated as ‘Non- Performing’ and special measures would initiated by Government.  The assessment of the draft against this new ‘special measure’ threshold had two sections - Speed of decision and Quality of decision - and would be reviewing the Council's performance on a backward rolling two year basis, the detail of which was highlighted in paragraph 2.2 of the report.


If the Council were identified as not complying with these standards/criteria they would be declared as ‘non performing’ and formal designation would follow.  In terms of formal designation there were two potential outcomes:-


·               Major applications the applicant would have the ability to bypass the Council and go straight to the Planning Inspectorate for determination. This would mean that the Council would lose determination control until such time as the designation was lifted.


·               Non-Major applications the Council would have to submit the Central Government an action plan addressing the areas of weakness that it had identified as having contributed to the underperformance.


Speed of Decision - It was evident that the decisions taken for the survey period were currently above the special measures threshold.  It was considered that there was significant headroom against those targets and as such the risk of Special Measures for Non-Performance was low.


Quality of Decision - This section looked at appeal decisions and specifically the number that had been allowed or overturned at appeal. This performance indicator was a reflection on the relevance of an up to date local plan and that the decision makers made correct and informed decisions.  Members noted that from the criteria given and the very low volumes of major applications progressed/determined within the survey period; meant that a small number of appeal decisions could have a significant impact upon performance and therefore there was a very high risk of the Council falling under special measures in this category.  Members noted that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.


South Downs National Park Authority Planning Applications.


There were none.




Eastbourne Pier.


Members were advised that some additional painting works had been undertaken by the owner of Eastbourne Pier.  The painting was over and above that which had been granted permission at a previous planning committee.


Members were advised of the options to address the situation and agreed that a Listed Building notice giving 21 days to return the areas of concern to their former condition and consider prosecution for the unauthorised works.  The two actions agreed may run concurrently.


RESOLVED: That delegated authority be given to the Senior Specialist Advisor for Planning to deliver the following:

1) Issue a Listed Building notice requiring the subject areas be returned to their to their former condition and

2) That the necessary paperwork be prepared, in consultation with Legal Services, with a view to secure prosecution for the unauthorised works.

3) That should the works to return the areas to their former condition be carried out within a reasonable period then no further action would be taken.