Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 March 2017 were submitted and approved and the Chairman was authorised to sign them as an accurate record.

There were none.

There were none.

Non-material changes to planning permission 150172 - Erection of mansard roof to provide for four self-contained flats. Alterations to fenestration on building's facade. Changes include: roof lights, vent pipes on roof, rainwater pipes, relocation of bin store and replace the approved glass to 2 balconies guarding with powder coated metal sheet – UPPERTON.

RESOLVED:  (Unanimous) That permission be granted.

Informative:

For the avoidance of doubt, the plans considered as part of this application and submitted on 14^th February 2017 are:

• Site Location Plan
• Block Plans and Proposed Elevations, 16.07.02

Demolition of commercial building and provision of 4 x 2 bed semi-detached dwellings – DEVONSHIRE.

One additional objection was reported as follows:

·         Loss of privacy

·         Overlooking given the close proximity of new buildings

·         Loss of light and overshadowing

·         Little available parking in the vicinity, this would make the situation worse

·         May increase the risk of localised flooding

RESOLVED:  (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Development in three years 2) Development in accordance with the approved plans 3) Front bathroom window  to be made from obscure glass 4) PD rights removed: windows 5) PD rights removed: extensions to any part of the building 6) Submission of a detailed landscaping plan 7) Existing vehicular access to be stopped up in agreement with local highway authority prior to occupation of building hereby approved 8) Provision of waste storage and cycle parking as per the approved plans 9) Working hours 8-6 Monday to Friday, 8-1 Saturday 10) Submission and approval of a construction management plan prior to commencement of works on site 11) Contamination survey.

To paint the remaining 2 domes in the middle of the Pier in gold colour to match the existing 13 domes. To paint the roof on the entrance mall with a white ‘weather proof’ sealant paint – DEVONSHIRE.     

The committee debated the issues arising with this submission and resolved to issue a split decision.

RESOLVED: (By 5 votes to 3) (For: Choudhury, Jenkins, Miah, Murray and Sabri) (Against: Murdoch, Robinson and Taylor) That Listed Building consent be granted for the painting of the two remaining domes in the centre of the pier in gold colour.

RESOLVED: (By 7 votes with 1 abstention) (For: Choudhury, Jenkins, Miah, Murdoch, Sabri, Taylor and Robinson) (Abstention: Murray) That permission to paint the roof on the entrance mall be refused on the grounds that because of the choice of colour and materials used, the painting of the roof areas to the entrance feature to the Pier would harm the special historic interest of this Grade II Listed Building.  This would result in less than substantial harm to this heritage asset without sufficient mitigation through demonstrable public benefits of the proposed works. This is contrary to paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy B1, D10 and D10A of Eastbourne Core Strategy (adopted 2015) and UHT1 and UHT17 of the Borough Plan (saved policies) 2007.

Demolition of 4. 3 bed houses and erection of 7. 2 bed flats and 5. 1 bed flats. Creation of 12. car park spaces and associated bin and bike stores – ST ANTHONYS.

One further objection had been received as a result of the second round of consultation. The objection reiterated previous concerns raised as follow:

·         Houses would be acceptable, but flats would create parking and traffic problems

·         Lorries associated with the industrial estates struggled to get up and down Northbourne Road – the development would make this worse

·         As it is a residential area, safety should be maintained

·         Added congestion would make it more of a dangerous place for the elderly, children and the disabled

·         Houses on Finmere Street were acceptable

·         Overdeveloping the site

·         Over parking would increase as there was inadequate off street parking

RESOLVED: (By 7 votes with 1 abstention)That permission be granted subject to a S106 Agreement for a Local Labour Agreement and the following conditions: 1) Time 2) Drawings 3) Samples 4) Construction method statement 5) Hours of demolition and construction 6) New access to be constructed in accordance with plan 7) Existing vehicular access to be closed 8) Details of surface water drainage – highway 9) Vehicle turning space, in accordance with plan 10) Car parking to be constructed in accordance with plan 11) Cycle parking to be constructed in accordance with plan 12) Visibility splays 13) Ground levels – surface water drainage 14) Infiltration testing 15) Detailed drainage strategy 16) Hydraulic calculations 17) SuDS maintenance and management plan 18) Landscaping/planting scheme 19) No bonfires – proximity to residents 20) Refuse and recycling collection and storage, in accordance with plan

Informative:

1) S106 for Local Labour Agreement

2) Southern Water - connection

3) Highways – Licence

The erection of a single storey building (Community Centre) – SOVEREIGN.

The East Sussex County Council Ecologist consultation response was reported as follows:

The Reptile Mitigation Strategy (dated 13 March 2017) was broadly acceptable. The receptor site was relatively small, when considering the development of the whole of site 6 not just the Community Centre Site, but provided it was managed in accordance with the mitigation strategy and including the proposed enhancements, the carrying capacity was considered sufficient.

The only points raised were that it should be made clear that the minimum capture effort was 60 suitable days (i.e. not necessarily 60 consecutive days from the start of the translocation exercise), and that suitable precautions must be taken to protect breeding birds during habitat manipulation/scrub clearance to increase efficiency of trapping (e.g. should be done under ecological supervision once checks for nesting birds have been carried out). If nesting birds were encountered, scrub clearance must stop until the young had fledged.

An objection had been received from Bespoke Cycle Group and was reported as follows:

·         Bespoke were disappointed that the plans fail to provide cycle access from the Harbour. The proposal only offers access via a 1.4m footpath and offers no cycle access.

·         The path should be at least 3m wide to accommodate all users.

·         Bespoke would also like consideration given to Toucan Crossing being added across the access road to the retail park. Vehicles exit the roundabout at speed which makes it difficult to stop.

·         Providing an improved cycle and pedestrian access would also help the Council reach their target of a reduction in traffic pollution by providing realistic alternatives to driving to the community centre.

RESOLVED A: (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject  to a deed of variation to the S106 of the 2013 planning permission to develop sites 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Sovereign Harbour being signed within a reasonable timeframe in relation to:-

• Amendments to the location of the Community Centre (previously proposed on site 5 or 7a)
• To include a financial contribution towards pedestrian improvements, footpath provision and assistance with changes to other highway infrastructure via Traffic Regulation Order
• The applicant shall be required to submit a planning application for the provision of a new access road connecting Pacific House with this application site
• Details of reptile translocation site ensuring fit for purpose retained in perpetuity

And the following conditions: 1) Time for commencement of development 2) Approved drawings 3) Materials to be as stated 4) Details of proposed vehicular linking Pacific House and the site and pedestrian access linking The Waterfront carpark to the site and that these to be implemented in full prior to the first beneficial use of the building and retained as such thereafter 5) Submission of detailed landscaping plan showing position of any trees 6) Details of hard and soft landscaping 7) Retention of existing trees and tree protection measures 8) Before commencement the submission of a survey of the site showing the location and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

There were none.

1)   9 Faraday Close.

2)   22 Church Street.

3)   26 Jevington Gardens.

4)   Land west of Larkspur Drive.

1) 9 Faraday Close.  The Inspector dismissed the appeal.

2) Suite 2, 22 Church Street.  The Inspector dismissed the appeal.

3) 26 Jevington Gardens.  The Inspector dismissed the appeal.

4) Land west of Larkspur Drive.  The Inspector dismissed the appeal.