Members of the Committee and Officers present introduced themselves to all those who were present during the meeting.

There were none.

Councillor Diplock declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 34, 38a Motcombe Road, as he was close friends with some of the residents and had lived in the neighbourhood for 10 years. He left the room for the discussion of the item.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2021 were submitted and approved as a correct record, and the Chair was authorised to sign them.

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

There were no urgent items.  An officer addendum, however, was circulated to the Committee prior to the start of the meeting, updating the main reports on the agenda with any late information (a copy of which was published on the Council’s website).

The Chair 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 was reordered from the agenda and taken in the following order:  Items 11, 9, 10, 7 and 8.

200968 - Demolition of existing Nursing Home and erection of 9no houses (2no x 3bed and 7no x 4bed) and 3no 1bed flats (12no residential units in total).  

200983 - AMENDED DESCRIPTION - Demolition of existing Nursing Home and erection of 6no houses (1no x 3bed and 5no x 4bed) and 6no 2bed flats (12no residential units in total) – OLD TOWN    

The Specialist Advisor (Planning) presented the report.

The Committee was advised by way of an Addendum of an additional representation that had been received from the Eastbourne Borough Council’s Heritage Champion.

Mr Robert Strange addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Simon Franks (Agent) spoke in support of the application. East Sussex County Councillor, Councillor Ungar, spoke in objection of the application.  The County Councillor declared for completeness that a relative of his was a neighbour to the site.

Members discussed the proposal and raised concerns regarding the height and mass of the scheme, stating that it was out of keeping and unsympathetic with area.

The Specialist Advisor (Planning) informed the Committee that new information had recently been received from the agent for a modified scheme and that officers had not had time to assess it, and therefore sought to defer the application.  

Members sought clarification on why the application could not be determined as per the recommendation for refusal in the officer’s report.

The Committee was advised that the Council had a duty to consider additional submitted information prior to decision and, if the information is within the scope of the application, to fulfil its statutory public consultation requirements.  Members would then be provided at future Planning Committee meeting with all of the material considerations available to determine the application. 

ID: 200968 & ID: 200983 - Councillor Murray proposed a motion to defer both applications to enable officers to assess the information received. This was seconded by Councillor Diplock and was carried. 

RESOLVED: (by 6 votes for to 2 against) that the applications be deferred for the information to be assessed; and to be determined at a future Planning Committee meeting following any required consultation.

Having declared a prejudicial interest, Councillor Diplock left the room and did not take part in the discussion or voting on this item.

Demolition of garages and commercial unit and erection of three dwellings and two Flats, site improvements including new access gate – OLD TOWN 

The Specialist Advisor (Planning) presented the report.

The Committee was advised by way of an Addendum of an additional representation that had been received from East Sussex County Council Highways, that confirmed that their initial objections relating to the safety of the site access had been addressed.

The Specialist Advisor advised that East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service had confirmed its officers would evaluate the access point during the Building Regulations stage and if the access was not accessible, the development would not be permitted.  Refuse bins for the site could be serviced by the bin crew and not manoeuvred the residents.

Mr Tom Handsley addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  A written representation was read aloud by the Senior Specialist Advisor on behalf of Councillor Dow, in his capacity as the Eastbourne Borough Ward Councillor.

Members discussed the proposal in detail including issues surrounding the access, safety of pedestrians and vehicles, visibility splay, collection of refuse bins, surfacing and lack of green space.

Councillor Miah proposed a motion against the officer’s recommendation, to refuse the application. This was seconded by Councillor Taylor and was carried. 

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) that Planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

1.    The narrow width of the site access and limited visibility available as it emerges onto highway roads would result in an unacceptable risk to highway risk as a result of more frequent usage raising the possibility of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. The development is therefore in conflict with policies B2 and D1 of the Eastbourne Core Strategy and para. 111 of the NPPF and would also fail to provide safe access for pedestrians and cyclist contrary to policy D8 of the Eastbourne Core Strategy and para. 108 and para.112 of the NPPF.

2.    The development, as a consequence of its scale and proximity to neighbouring dwellings would result in an unacceptable adverse impact upon residential amenities, contrary to policy HO20 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan, policies B2 and D1 of the Eastbourne Core Strategy and para. 130 of the NPPF.

The Chair paused the meeting for a 10 minute comfort break.

Conversion of Doctor's Surgery (Use Class E) to provide 9no residential flats (Use Class C3 - 3no 2bed 3 person, 4no 1bed 2persons and 2no 1bed 1person) with 9no off-street car parking spaces and external alterations – UPPERTON

The Senior Specialist Advisor (Planning) presented the application.

The Committee was advised by way of an Addendum of 6 additional representations that had been received in objection to the application, and an additional proposed condition to secure the agreement of a lighting scheme at the rear of the property.

The Senior Specialist Advisor confirmed that two additional representations had been received after the Addendum had been published. 

Mr Roy Fisher addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Mr Simon Franks (Agent) spoke in support of the application. Councillor Rodohan, Eastbourne Borough Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application.

Members discussed the application and raised concerns regarding noise and disturbance, parking, lack of outside space, carbon neutrality measures and the potential for a future HMO.  Members supported the removal of the ramp and felt the concerns had been mitigated by the separation of the two buildings and conditions in the officer’s report.

The Senior Specialist Adviser addressed the matters raised by objectors and members and confirmed that the previous application for an HMO (ID: 210026) had been withdrawn by the applicant. This application sought consent for flats, not an HMO. Any further sub-division of the building, or use as a large HMO, would require planning permission. Any unauthorised development/use would be for Planning Enforcement investigation.  As it was not a major application and was for conversion of an existing building, there was no specific sustainability requirements for the scheme, but electric vehicle charging points could be recommended if members proposed it.

Councillor Taylor proposed a motion to approve the application in line with the officers’ recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Vaughan and was carried, subject to an additional condition to include electric vehicle charging points.  Councillor Maxted requested that there be a named vote and this was approved.

RESOLVED: (by 7 votes for (Councillors Diplock, Lamb, Miah, Murdoch, Murray, Taylor and Vaughan) and 1 vote against (Councillor Maxted) that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the officers report and in the Addendum and a further condition to include electric vehicle charging points.

Demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site to provide 14 flats with associated off-street car parking – UPPERTON.

The Senior Specialist Advisor (Planning) presented the report.

Mr Richard Parrett addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

The Committee discussed the proposal in detail, raising concerns regarding the height of the four-storey building, the proximity to the road which might mean a reduction in tree screening, access and number of flats.  They felt that it was too overbearing and dominant for the character of the area. Members also welcomed the design, underground parking and retention of trees.

Councillor Miah proposed a motion to defer the application to seek a reduction in height/scale. This was seconded by Councillor Lamb and was carried. 

RESOLVED: (by 6 votes for to 2 against) that the application be deferred to seek a reduction in the height/scale of the building and reduce overbearing impacts upon neighbouring occupants.

Demolition of 8no houses (Cavalry Crescent and North Avenue) and erection of 6no houses and 14no apartments with associated landscaping, parking and sustainability measures – OLD TOWN

The Senior Specialist Advisor (Planning) presented the report.

The Committee was advised by way of an Addendum that the response from East Sussex County Council (ESCC) Highways regarding the revised car parking layout was awaited, as was the revised Heads of Terms for the S106 Agreement to omit a Travel Plan and include a bus transport infrastructure improvements contribution.

Members discussed the application and welcomed the re-development of existing housing stock. Members sought clarification on the appraisal of the design, amenity and refuse/recycling storage, which the Senior Specialist Advisor explained in more detail in relation to adopted policy and guidance.

Councillor Murray proposed a motion to approve the application in line with the officer’s recommendation for delegated authority to conclude consultation with ESCC Highways on the revised car parking layout, subject to a S106 Agreement and the conditions set out in the Addendum. This was seconded by Councillor Diplock and was carried.   

RESOLVED: (unanimously) that the Head of Planning be delegated to conclude consultation with ESCC Highways on the revised car parking layout and following agreement, to approve subject to a S106 agreement and the revised Heads of Terms to secure local labour agreement, affordable housing provision, bus infrastructure contribution, TRO contribution and car club contribution as set out in the Addendum, and the conditions set out in the officers’ report.

To note that the meeting of the Planning Committee is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, 19 October 2021 in the Court Room at Eastbourne Town Hall, Grove Road, Eastbourne, BN21 4UG.

Resolved:

That the next meeting of the Planning Committee is scheduled to commence at 6:00pm on Tuesday, 19 October 2021, be noted.