Agenda and minutes

Eastbourne Borough Council Planning Committee - Tuesday, 3rd March, 2015 6.00 pm

Venue: Town Hall, Eastbourne

Contact: Katie Maxwell on 01323 415023  Email:  katie.maxwell@eastbourne.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

139.

Minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2015. pdf icon PDF 116 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2015 were submitted and approved and the Chairman was authorised to sign them as an accurate record.

 

140.

Apologies for absence.

Minutes:

There were none.

141.

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.

Minutes:

There were none.

142.

1 Vincent Close. Application ID: 141604. pdf icon PDF 66 KB

Minutes:

Proposed demolition of existing garage and conservatory and erection of side and rear single storey extension, and over-cladding to existing dwelling – SOVEREIGN.  Six letters of objection had been received.

 

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

 

Mrs Attwood addressed the committee in objection stating that the cladding altered the nature and character of the close and was detrimental to the surrounding area.

 

Mr Roberts addressed the committee in objection stating that the cladding would be out of keeping with the remaining houses in the close.  Mr Roberts felt that there were alternative materials available to thermally upgrade the building that would be more in keeping with the neighbouring properties.

 

Mrs Gander addressed the committee in objection stating that the proposed cladded exterior would not be in keeping with neighbouring properties.

 

Mr Andrews, agent, addressed the committee in response stating that the applicant had responded to the objectors comments.  The suggested brick alternative to the cladding was not considered suitable for the design of the property and the scheme had been designed in accordance with local and national planning policies.

 

The committee had no objection to the extension of the property; however they felt concerned by the proposed cladding and its effect on the neighbouring properties and visual amenity of the surrounding area.

 

RESOLVED: (By 5 votes to 3) The scheme by virtue of the proposed exterior cladding would result in a form of development that would be incongruous and out of character with the predominant character of the area and would be contrary to Policies UHT1, UHT4 and HO20 of the Saved Policies of the Eastbourne Borough Plan and Policies B1, B2, D10a and C13 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, is considered to be written representations.

 

 

143.

13 Sturdee Close. Application ID: 141535. pdf icon PDF 37 KB

Minutes:

Two storey side extension and fence to side – SOVEREIGN. Objections had been received and were summarised within the report.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Time Limit 2) Approved drawings 3) Matching Materials 4) Development shall be in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment attached to this application.

 

Informative

The owners of the property should note that the maintenance of land within the curtilage of the property but beyond the proposed fence remains their responsibility.

 

144.

South Downs National Park Authority Planning Applications. pdf icon PDF 91 KB

Minutes:

Telecommunications Mast - 3 and EE, adjacent to the escape lane East Dean Road Eastbourne East Sussex - Replace 12m high monopole with Dorset cabinet.

 

The committee was advised that the South Downs National Park Authority had advised that they did not wish to formally determine the details of the proposal, and therefore agreed that the removal of a 12 metre monopole and its replacement with a cabinet, in addition to the installation of a top hat extension to an existing cabinet was considered likely to have a very similar visual impact to the existing.

 

NOTED.