Application for approval of reserved matters (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) together with discharge of conditions 2(part), 3(part), 9(part), 16, 19, 22, 24, 28, 29, 39, 40, 41 and 47 following outline approval (Ref: 131002) for the development of Site 1, Sovereign Harbour for 72 Residential Units, consisting of 62 Apartments over two blocks, and 10 houses – SOVEREIGN. 67 letters of objection had been received. Columbus Point Residents Association and the Management Company and Sovereign Harbour Residents Association had also objected.
The relevant planning history for the site was detailed within the report.
The observations of the Specialist Advisors for Arboriculture and Conservation, East Sussex County Council Highways department, Strategy and Commissioning - Planning Policy, the Design Review Panel, the Environment Agency, Historic England, the County Ecologist and Southern Water were summarised within the report.
The committee was advised that the Lead Local Flood Authority’s (East Sussex County Council) comments were summarised as follows:
‘Further information and an additional condition was requested in relation to the maintenance and management of the proposed SUDs Scheme.
Additional comments received from five neighbouring properties were reported and broadly covered the same objections that had already been received. The committee was advised that although not yet formally received by the Council, it was understood that an online petition against the development had received over 500 signatures following a Facebook campaign.
Columbus Point Residents Association had made further comment summarised as follows:
· The amendments during the course of the application did not overcome concerns raised.
Mr Levy addressed the committee in objection stating that the development would impact on residential amenity and the maintenance of the shingle on the adjacent beach.
Mr Cameron addressed the committee in objection stating that the site could not cope with a development of this size, the open space was needed for the community and that the development would cause parking and traffic issues in and around the site.
Mr Gregory addressed the committee in objection stating that the development was not in keeping with the surrounding area and contrary to Council policy. He also felt that the development would affect the visual amenity of residents and affect the amount of daylight to neighbouring properties. Mr Gregory also agreed that the development would cause parking and traffic issues in and around the site.
Ms Scudder addressed the committee in objection stating that a petition of 559 signatures had been collected in objection to the development within the last two weeks. She also stated that many residents used the recreation land. Ms Scudder also agreed that the development would cause parking and traffic issues in and around the site, a reduction in daylight and noise issues.
Mr Weeks addressed the committee in objection stating that site did not have the necessary social infrastructure due to the lack of community facilities at the Harbour.
Mrs Weeks addressed the committee in objection to a perceived conflict with the Sovereign Harbour Supplementary Planning Document.
Ms Nagy, agent for the applicant, addressed the committee in response stating that all technical requirements for the site had been met in line with the original approval for development on the site. The design parameters had been consulted on. Parking controls for the site would be developed in consultation with the local community. Ms Nagy also stated that the separation between buildings meant that there would be a break in the view for adjacent homes, light and shade had also been assessed. The appearance of the development was deliberately different from the surroundings to create a landmark development, with landscaping protecting the open spaces. The Environment Agency and Premier Marina were aware that they would need to find an alternative solution to the shingle replacement programme currently in place.
The committee discussed the application in detail and requested that the East Sussex County Council parking review be carried out at the earliest opportunity.
RESOLVED: (By 7 votes with 1 abstention) That the reserved matters application be granted subject to 1) a S106 agreement:
The Heads of Terms for the S106 to cover:
2) And subject to the following conditions 1) Highways – Accesses for houses 2) Highways – shared space shall be available for pedestrians and cycle access 3) No plant or machinery to be installed to roofs of any houses or flats 4) Approved drawings 5) Prior to the first occupation of any of the residential units hereby approved a plan shall be submitted identifying residential demarcation (assigned plot boundaries). This plan shall endorse that the residential demarcation shall end at the seaward end of the proposed decking 6) The soft landscaping hereby approved shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of phase of the development to which it relates. The soft landscaping as implemented shall be protected (Barrier fencing) from the construction of later phases of the development 7) Once implemented the soft landscaping areas to the seaward side of the development (outside of the residential demarcation zone) shall be maintained by the applicant (or a management company assigned by them) and at no time shall the areas be supplemented (planted) by species selected by the home owner 8) Details of Sustainable Drainage to include the maintenance and management regime for the proposed sustainable drainage.
Highways – need for a licence for construction of accesses.