The minutes of the meeting held on 28 May 2019 were submitted and approved as a correct record, and the Chair was authorised to sign them.

Apologies for absence were reported from Councillor Jim Murray and Md.Harun Miah.

Councillor Taylor declared a Prejudicial Interest in minute 7, 13 Upper Avenue, as he was the owner of a care home.  He withdrew from the room while the item was considered and did not vote.

The Chairman to notify the Committee of any items of urgent business to be added to the agenda.

There were none.

The Chairman to report any requests received to address the Committee from a member of the public or from a Councillor in respect of planning applications/items listed and that these applications/items are taken at the commencement of the meeting.

The business of the meeting proceeded in accordance with the agenda.

Planning permission for the demolition of existing dwelling.  Proposed 16N° block of flats with associated parking to the rear. MEADS

The Committee was advised by way of an addendum report, that should the recommendation to refuse be overturned by members, a requirement for a local labour agreement, including monetary contributions towards monitoring, would be attached either as a planning condition or included within a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Mr Chris Bennell, local resident, addressed the Committee in objection, raising concerns regarding parking, access and overdevelopment.

Mr Scard, Chair of Meads Community Association, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He stated the application was out of keeping with the area and was in an area of high townscape value.

Mr Manas Chadha, applicant, spoke in response and said that the proposal would provide an affordable housing contribution and sustainable development of economic benefit.

Councillor Smart, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee (from the public gallery) in objection to the application.  He said the current consultation to extend the College Conservation Area to encompass Grassington Road would, if formally adopted, have an impact on the site. 

The Committee discussed the application and felt that the resolution to refuse the application should include an additional condition regarding overdevelopment.

Councillor Taylor proposed a motion to refuse the application. This was seconded by Councillor Maxted.

Resolved (Unanimous): That permission be refused as set out in the report but with reference to overdevelopment added to reasons for refusal 1 and 2. The revised reasons for refusal are listed below:-

1.          The formation of a significant car parking area to the rear of the site would result in the loss of a sizeable area of green space, which currently contributes towards the verdant character and appearance of the surrounding area, represents an overdevelopment of the site and would also introduce a more intensive level of activity to the rear of the site which would cause harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents by way of noise, air and light emissions, in conflict with chapter 12 and saved policies HO20 and NE28 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan.

2.          The considerable height, bulk and mass of the proposed building combined with the use of featureless flank elevation walls and its proximity to the neighbouring 2½ dwelling at 6 Grassington Road would lead to it appearing overly dominant in terms with its relationship to that property and oppressive in terms of its relationship towards the occupants of that property, and an overdevelopment of the site in conflict with Chapter 12 of the Revised NPPF, policy D10a of the Eastbourne Core Strategy and saved policies UHT1, UHT4 and UHT5 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan.

Planning permission for the change of use from Class C2 Residential Care Home to a Sui-Generis HMO for no more than 34 persons with associated parking and cycle and bin storage – UPPERTON

Having declared a Prejudicial Interest, Councillor Taylor was absent from the room during discussion and voting on this item.

The Committee was advised by way of an addendum report, of an additional condition to the resolution, should the application be approved.

Mr Nolan, local resident, addressed the Committee in objection, raising concerns regarding loss of privacy, noise and disturbance, and the potential for occupants with multiple social needs to clash.

Mr Naveed Ali, applicant, addressed the Committee in support, stating that the HMO would provide good quality accommodation for those who could not afford a 1 bedroom apartment.  He said a communal living room would be provided as well as a full time caretaker, 24hr CCTV, and an electronic entry system.  Residents would be fully vetted.

Councillor Maxted, Ward Councillor (spoke on behalf of Cllr Rodohan, Ward Councillor).  He said there was no guarantee the HMO would house local people and that he would prefer to see the number of beds reduced from 34 to 20, with 3 shared rooms, and a live in manager providing full time support 24hrs a day, 7 days a week.

The Committee discussed the application and felt that the scheme would benefit from a reduction in the number of HMO units/occupants.

Councillor Metcalfe proposed a motion to defer the application. This was seconded by Councillor Maxted.

Resolved (Unanimous): That permission be deferred for the following reason:

That the application is deferred to officers to seek amendments to reduce the number of HMO units/occupants, prior to being brought back to the Committee.

There were none.

Members noted that the Inspector had dismissed the appeal.