Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 August 2014 were submitted and approved and the Chairman was authorised to sign them as an accurate record.

Councillors Harris, Jenkins and Councillor Taylor.  Councillor Howlett attended as substitute for Councillor Jenkins.

Councillor Hearn declared a prejudicial interest in minutes 56 and 57, 1 Glynde Avenue as a Director of Eastbourne Homes and withdrew from the room whilst those items were considered.

Councillor Ungar declared that with regard to minute 66, 32 Baldwin Avenue, he had previously reached a view in relation this application and considered himself as being pre-determined with regard to it. He therefore withdrew from the room whilst the application was considered.

Due to considering himself predetermined ,Councillor Ungar  withdrew from the room whilst this application was considered.  In the absence of the Deputy Chair, Councillor Hearn proposed that Councillor Murray chair the meeting for this item.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Miah.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That Councillor Murray chair the committee for item 16, 32 Baldwin Avenue (minute 66).

Reconsultation amendments to rear extension and site layout: Erection of 2no. two storey rear extensions and refurbishment works to existing building to create 10 one bedroom flats – HAMPDEN PARK.  Six letters of objection had been received.  Two further letters of concern were reported at the meeting raising similar concerns to those included within the officer’s report, with one letter referring to an overdevelopment of the site.

The planning history for the site was detailed within the report.

The observations of the Environment Agency and Highways East Sussex County Council were summarised within the report.

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

RESOLVED: (By 3 votes to 1 with 1 abstention) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Time Limit 2) Approved Plans 3) No additional windows 4) External Materials 5) Boundary treatments (around the entire plot boundary) 6) Front garden landscaping layout 7) surface details for access-way, passing bay and rear parking court 8) parking spaces shall be surfaced and marked out in accordance with the drawings prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved 9) the bin store shall be provided in accordance with the drawings hereby approved and retained as such thereafter 10) Hours of construction 11) The development hereby approved shall not be implemented if the bungalow approved under application reference 140756 has first been implemented 12) Notwithstanding the details shown on the plans hereby approved there shall be no first floor flank (kitchen) window to flat No 9 facing properties in Brassey Avenue. This room shall be illuminated via sky/rooflights the details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The erection of a detached, self-contained two bedroom bungalow with wheelchair access to the rear of No.1 Glynde Road – HAMPDEN PARK.  Six letters of objection had been received.

The relevant planning history for the site was detailed within the report.

The Environment Agency made no comment as the site was outside of the flood zone.

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

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1)Time Limit 2) Approved Plans 3) No additional windows 4) External Materials 5) Boundary treatments (around the entire plot boundary) 6) Front garden landscaping layout 7) surface details for access-way, passing bay and rear parking court 8) parking spaces shall be surfaced and marked out in accordance with the drawings prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved 9) the bin store shall be provided in accordance with the drawings hereby approved and retained as such thereafter 10) Hours of construction 11) The development hereby approved shall not be implemented if the scheme approved under application reference 140755 has first been implemented.

Erection of a two storey, two bedroom attached dwelling – ST ANTHONYS.  Three objections were received, with one signed by 13 residents.

The relevant planning history for the site was detailed within the report.

The observations of the Council’s Estate Manager, Specialist Advisor (Planning Policy) and East Sussex County Council Highways department were summarised within the report.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be refused on the grounds that 1) the proposed development would be an overdevelopment of a restricted site, by reason of its scale and siting, and would be out of character with, and detrimental to the regular and symmetrical layout of the surrounding properties, and the outlook from the adjacent dwelling.  The proposal therefore conflicts with policies UHT1, UHT4, HO6, and HO20 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan (Saved Policies) 2007, policies B2, C6 and D10A of the Eastbourne Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 and paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2) The application makes no provision for affordable housing or compensatory flood storage and therefor conflicts with policy D5 of theEastbourne Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 and policy US4 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan (Saved Policies) 2007.

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, is considered to be written representations.

Retrospective application for canopy / smoking shelter over yard area to the rear. Canopy roof constructed of clear polycarbonate sheeting – DEVONSHIRE.  One letter of objection had been received.

The relevant planning history for the site was detailed within the report.

The Council’s Licensing Team raised no objections to the current proposal.

The committee were advised that the Specialist Advisor (Environmental Health) had not received any complaints relating to the site.

The East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service had responded stating that after visiting the site, subject to minor issues relating to visibility of fire escapes and appropriate locks to the gate, there were no operational fire safety issues.

RESOLVED: (By 4 votes to 2) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Approved drawings 2) Within 14 days from the date of this decision details of means of escape to rear alleyway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details as approved shall include method of opening and method of securing the gate to/from alleyway. The details as approved shall be implemented at the site within 1 month following their approval and be retained as such thereafter.

Conversion of part of garage to extend habitable living space – UPPERTON.  One letter of objection had been received.

This application had been withdrawn prior to the meeting.

Change of use from a bed & breakfast (Class C1) to a house in multiple occupation (sui generis) – DEVONSHIRE.  Seven letters of objection had been received.

The relevant planning history for the site was detailed within the report.

The observations of the Council’s Specialist Advisor (Environmental Health) were summarised within the report.

Mrs Bamforth addressed the committee in objection stating concerns regarding increased parking issues with any increase in the number of residents, and potential noise and anti social behaviour related to Houses of Multiple Occupation.

Iona Cameron, agent for the applicant, submitted further points for the committee to consider, including a flood risk assessment, and in response to the objector stated that there was a chronic shortage of this type of accommodation in Eastbourne and that there would be no more than 14 persons residing at the property.  The proposed rooms complied with current standards and there would only be an increase of one additional room.

The committee agreed that the proposed rooms were too small and inadequate for any potential resident, and as such was an overdevelopment.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be refused on the grounds that 1) the proposals given the poor standard/quality of accommodation is likely to create an unacceptable living environment for the future tenants/occupiers of this building/use and would therefore conflict with policies B2 of the Eastbourne Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 and Policies HO9, HO14 and TO3 of the Eastbourne Plan (Saved Policies) 2007 and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2) The proposal seeks to create sleeping accommodation for 18 residents and it is considered that the property is inappropriate for this intensity of conversion and as such would have an adverse effect on the amenity of the area generally, and the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring properties in particular, by reason of increased in activity, noise and general disturbance and would conflict with policies B2 of the Eastbourne Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 and Policies HO9, HO14 and TO3 of the Eastbourne Plan (Saved Policies) 2007 and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework

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, is considered to be written representations.

Proposed two storey extension to existing rear elevation together with proposed outbuilding for use as studio in rear garden.  Demolition and re-building of the existing garage and side extension – HAMPDEN PARK.  One letter of objection had been received.  One further letter of objection was reported at the meeting relating to loss of light, overbearing relationship to the neighbouring property.  The letter also stated that the objector would not have any objections to a single storey extension.

The relevant planning history for the site was detailed within the report.

The Specialist Advisor (Planning Policy) advised that the proposal would result in an increase in impermeable area by a total of 20 m² attracting £61 flood storage compensation.

Mrs Parr addressed the committee in objection stating that the height of the garage should be reduced as its current proposed size would result in a loss of light.

Mr Irving, applicant, addressed the committee in response to the objector stating that the current garage required demolition and that he had discussed various options with neighbours with a view to resolving issues relating to size and loss of light.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Time limit 2) Approved drawings 3) Materials 4) Paint / render East flank garage elevation white (help reduce visual impact)

Side, Rear Extension with associated internal alterations to provide enlarged accommodation – ST ANTHONYS.

Members were reminded that this application/site was reported to Planning Committee in June 2014 and at that Committee the scheme proposed a rear extension incorporating a basement extension. Members discussed the issues relating to the scheme and outlined severe concerns over the construction of a basement element of the scheme and the potential that this may have upon the structural integrity of the neighbouring property/plot.  Revised drawings had been received deleting the basement element of the extension from the proposal, the scheme now proposed a single storey rear extension.  The footprint of the single storey extension was identical to that as reported to Planning Committee in June 2014

As outlined with the report to Committee in June 2014 there were no substantive objections to the single storey element of the proposal and any impacts that there may be upon the occupiers of the adjacent properties/plots would not be sufficient to substantiate a refusal of planning permission.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Time Limit 2) Approved Drawings.

Erection of two-storey side extension – ST ANTHONYS.  A number of objections were summarised within the report.

The Council’s Estate Manager made no comment and the Specialist Advisor (Policy) noted a compensatory flood storage contribution of £112.  East Sussex County Council’s County Archaeologist made no recommendations.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Commencement within three years 2) Development in accordance with amended plans 3) Submission of samples 4) Position of rear garden fence behind visibility splay 5) Hours of building operations

Change of use of part existing B1 premises to use as a club for the instruction of martial arts to children and adults (D2) – DEVONSHIRE.  Two letters of support were reported at the meeting, one from Stephen Lloyd, MP, stating that he fully supported the application as the applicant was a long standing business in the town and that the club would bring significant community benefit.  Mr Lloyd, MP, did not anticipate and residential issues with the change of use of the site.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Time for commencement 2) Approval of drawings 3) Restriction on hours of operation until 2100 Monday to Friday, until 12pm Saturdays and no times on Sundays or bank holidays 4) No amplified music at any time 5) The first floor of the building shall be used as a Martial Arts Studio only and for no other purpose without planning permission from the local planning authority.

Revised scheme for: Proposed two storey extension at rear and first floor extension over porch – OLD TOWN.  Three objections had been received.

The observations of the Council’s Specialist Advisor (Arboriculture), the East Sussex County Council’s Archaeologist and East Sussex County Highways department were summarised within the report.

Mr Nay addressed the committee in objection stating that the proposed development would be overbearing and intrusive and would result in a loss of light, and residential and visual amenity for neighbouring properties.

Mrs Shearer addressed the committee in objection reiterating the previous speaker’s comments and that the proposal was too large and bulky for the site.

Members sought clarification on matters that could be considered as part of the decision making process, and were advised that any impact on the streetscene was not severe enough to warrant as a reason for refusal.

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

RESOLVED: (By 4 votes to 1) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Time limit 2) Approved drawings 3) Materials 4) Restriction of PD rights, no additional windows in North Flank or Eastern Elevation.

Proposed single story extension together with first floor extension to enlarge existing offices – ST ANTHONYS.  Seven objections and one comment had been received.

The relevant planning history for the site was detailed within the report.

RESOLVED: (By 5 votes to 1) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Time for commencement 2) Approval of drawings 3) No additional windows in the rear south-eastern elevation 4) Materials to be as specified.

Construction of two one-bedroom single storey houses – DEVONSHIRE.  17 objections had been received.

The relevant planning history for the site was detailed within the report.

The observations of the Council’s Housing Manager, East Sussex County Council Archaeologist and East Sussex County Council Highways Manager were summarised within the report.

Members were advised that a revised response had been received from the East Sussex Highways Officer.  In summary the revised response referred to a recommendation for refusal due to the lack of on site parking.  National guidance stated that not all developments had to provide off street parking, where the additional demand could be catered for on street.   The applicant had previously submitted information showing that there were adequate spaces available on street to cater for the extra demand, however this information was recorded last year (2013) and was not submitted as part of the application. The applicant had sent in further/more up to date information which again showed there were enough spaces on street close to the site at peak usage times, i.e. evenings.  The Highways Officer requested that should the application be approved, an additional condition relating to the closing of the existing driveway which would provide additional on street parking, be added.

The Senior Specialist Advisor (Planning) advised the committee that in light of the revised response from County Highways it was recommended that the second reason for refusal (stated in the report) could therefore not now be substantiated and should be withdrawn.

Mrs Wilkinson, addressed the committee in objection stating that the on street parking was limited throughout the daytime and any development would exacerbate this.  The proposed bungalows would be out of keeping with the surrounding properties.  Mrs Wilkinson also expressed concern about access for emergency services.

Mr Wilson, applicant, addressed the committee in response to the objector, highlighting the revised response of the East Sussex Highways Officer.  Mr Wilson also referred to a covenant for the site restricting any buildings to one storey.

The committee agreed that the proposed development would be out of keeping and an overdevelopment of the site.  Members agreed that the second reason for refusal (detailed in the report) should be removed in light of the East Sussex Highways Officer revised response.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be refused on the grounds that 1) the proposals, by reason of their position, size, design and external appearance, limited external amenity area would be an intrusive development, out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality, as well as having a serious and adverse effect on the amenities enjoyed by occupants of neighbouring property and would be contrary to Policies UHT1, HO1, H06 of the saved Policies in the Local Plan and Policy  D10a of the Eastbourne Core Strategy Local Plan 2) the application fails to deliver (mechanism for delivery) the affordable housing contribution required by this development and as such development would have an adverse impact local infrastructure provision.

Appeal:

Should the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

There were none.