The minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2018 were submitted and approved and the Chair was authorised to sign them as an accurate record.

Apologies for absence were reported from Councillor Robinson and Taylor.

Councillor Metcalfe MBE, declared a prejudicial interest in minute 57 Site 8, Pacific Drive, Sovereign Harbour, as he lived directly opposite the application site.  Councillor Metcalfe MBE, withdrew from the room whilst the application was considered and did not vote thereon.

Proposed change of use of land at the rear of 15 Hartfield Road from residential curtilage and parking to commercial parking for use by St Anne's Veterinary Group, Eastbourne with part of a low level wall to be rebuilt, provision of new sliding entrance gate and a widened vehicle cross over – UPPERTON.

Resolved: (Unanimous) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings:-

2017-94-03;

2017-94-04.

3. No development shall commence until full details of existing and proposed ground levels (referenced as Ordinance Datum) within the site and on land and buildings adjoining the site by means of spot heights and cross-sections, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved level details.

4. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of all boundary screening including surfacing, fencing, landscaping walls (including any necessary repairs to the existing wall), shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall thereafter be provided and maintained in place throughout the lifetime of the development.  Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

5. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer must advise the local authority (in consultation with Southern Water) of the measures which will be undertaken to protect the public sewers.

6. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer must advise the local authority (in consultation with Southern Water) of the measures which will be undertaken to protect the public sewers.

7. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of surface water drainage, including measures to prevent discharge of surface water onto the highway and surrounding properties shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

8. The new/extended crossover and access shall be constructed prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted.

9. Prior to the use of the car park, full details of the design and appearance of the gate as well as a method statement regarding the automatic operation of the vehicular access gate shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The vehicular access gate shall thereafter be operated in strict accordance with the approved method statement at all times.

10. The vehicle parking area shown on the approved plans shall not be used otherwise than for the parking of private motor vehicles and motorcycles belonging to staff employed by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Proposed refurbishment and extension to existing former telephone exchange building and the construction of two, part two, three and four storey buildings to the rear to provide a total of 85 residential units, 58, one and two bed flats and 27, two storey, one and two bed maisonettes. A total of 88 on site car parking spaces will be provided – ST ANTHONYS.

The committee was advised, by way of an addendum report, that since the publication of the agenda, 27 further responses had been received and were summarised as follows:

1. The application wrong for the site

2. Overlooking

3. There would be highway and parking problems

4. It would be overbearing to properties in the areas

5. There would be a loss of privacy

6. There would be an adverse impact on living conditions

7. The local infrastructure would be impacted (doctors schools etc)

8. The visibility splay will cause issues / blocking causing safety issues

9. Loss of light

10. Not suitable for disabled access to the flats, not compliant with Part M of the building regulations

11. Parking for disabled were few and poorly located and designed

12. Too many units

13. Located on a school route

14. Right to light

15. When assessed on nearby development site may have a communicative impact.

Ann Clarke addressed the committee in objection stating that the development was not in keeping with the surrounding area, Council policy states that there should be no more than 42 dwellings on the site.  She stated that there would be a loss of light, overshadowing and loss of privacy.  Ms Clarke was also concerned about the effect on the infrastructure, which would harm the surrounding neighbourhood.

Nicola Mason, addressed the committee on behalf of the Neighbourhood Panel, stating that there would be a loss of amenity space, loss of light and the proposed access and visibility splays would not be sufficient or safe for access and egress.  Ms Mason also mentioned the lack of wheel chair access to the ground floor flats.

Councillor Tutt, Leader of the Council and Ward Councillor, addressed the committee in objection stating that the principle of development was supported by residents however the number of dwellings had now trebled.  He stated that the applicant had met with residents and himself to discuss amendments which had subsequently not been made. He stated that there would be a loss of light and privacy and agreed with Ms Mason regarding the access / egress to the site and with Ms Clarke regarding the effect on the infrastructure.

Simon Bareham, addressed the committee on behalf of the applicant and stated that the proposal was a well-designed scheme for open market and affordable housing.  Both the applicant and Officers had met to resolve the Inspector’s concerns.  The number of dwellings had been reduced to mitigate the overlooking concerns.  Both the height and appearance of the proposal had been acceptable to the Inspector.  

The committee discussed the application and felt that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Variation of conditions 2 (Approved Drawings) and 3 (Boundary Treatments) following grant of reserved matters dated 8 June 2015 for the development of Site 8, for up to eight dwellings to provide vehicle access gates to the driveway, additional side access to No.1 Port Moresby Place (previously plot 8) amendments to the layout of the car parking area, and alterations to the landscaping plan with retaining wall to area for future berth holder facilities (Ref: 141469) – SOVEREIGN.

The committee was advised, by way of an addendum report, that two letters of objection had been received and were summarised as follows:

1. The gates would prevent emergency and maintenance access. The land was for public use and it would be wrong to limit access;

2. The gates should only be at the access to the car park;

3. There had been unacceptable delays in providing access to the public open space.

The committee considered the application and requested that one of the plants proposed for landscaping be removed due to the size and speed with which it grows and that the managing company ensure the emergency services are provided with the relevant codes to access the secure gates.

NB: Councillor Metcalfe, MBE left the room whilst this item was considered.

Resolved (Unanimous): That the variation of condition application for the amendments set out in the application be granted.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal.

Resolved: That the appeal decision be noted.

There were none.