Agenda item

Planning Applications for Consideration.

Specialist Advisor (Conservation) to report on applications.

Minutes:

The Specialist Advisor for Conservation reported on planning applications for consideration in Conservation Areas.  The Group’s comments were set out in the schedule below.

1) 161133, (LBC), Eastbourne Railway Station, Terminus Road, Eastbourne, BN21 3QJ

Cons Area: Town Centre and Seafront

Proposal: Refurbishment works at Eastbourne Station including the addition of a new entrance on the northern arcade of the building, extensions to the roof of the building over the new entrance, relocating stairs to the basement, opening up a historic entrance door into the station on Ashford Road and refurbishment works to the exterior station canopy.

CAAG Comments: The Group’s original scheduled site visit had been cancelled due to strike action. It was agreed that the site visit would now take place on the 17th January.

2)  161243, (PP) 34 Meads Street, Eastbourne, East Sussex, BN20 7QY

Cons Area: Meads

Proposal: to install a combination of illuminated and non-illuminated signage at the Co-Op, specifically 3 X illuminated fascia Logo Only illuminated, 1 X Non-illuminated acrylic letters, 1 X Internally illuminated projector, 1 X Non- illuminated Post Office projector, 2 X Non-illuminated Wall Mounted Aluminium Pane.

CAAG Comments: The Group raised no objections to the proposal and felt it would enhance the area. As a further improvement it was suggested that officers engage with the applicant’s design team and explore the possibility of reducing the use of food advertising imagery on the shop windows.

3) 161155, (PP), Beach adjacent to bowling green in Royal ParAde, Eastbourne, BN21 1HA

Cons Area: Town Centre and Seafront

Proposal: Construction of 3 volley ball courts.

CAAG Comments: The Group were supportive of the proposal and noted the modifications made to mitigate the effect of the volleyball courts on the historic setting. The group also invited the applicant to consider options for the structure during close season.

4) 161326, (LBC), Our Lady Of Ransom RC Church, 2-4 Grange Road, Eastbourne     

Cons Area: Town Centre and Seafront

Proposal: Proposed internal alterations and infill of small light well to The Presbytery.

CAAG Comments: No objections raised.

5) 161364, (PP), 8 Chiswick Place, Eastbourne, BN21 4NH

Cons Area: Town Centre and Seafront

Proposal: To demolish existing single garage, move rear garden boundary within site and erect 2 storey two bedroom detached dwelling.

CAAG Comments: The Group raised objections to the proposal and were concerned about its relationship with the adjourning buildings, the loss of townscape vista and alterations to the boundary wall.

6) 161321(Variation of condITions)/161424,Courtlands Hotel, 3-5 Wilmington Gardens, Eastbourne

Cons Area: College

Proposal:To consider design changes to an agreed planning application.

CAAG Comments: The Group were supportive of the proposal in principle but had concerns about a number of aspects of the design, most notably the prominent roof extension to the front of the property, which was seen as visually unappealing. The Group also strongly objected to the proposed replacement of timber sash windows with UPVC in this prime conservation area. The applicant was also invited to explore the possibility of installing string courses. The porch design was, however, commended.

7) 161339, (PP), 3-5 CARLISLE ROAD, EASTBOURNE, EAST SUSSEX, BN21 4BT

Cons Area: Town Centre and Seafront

Proposal: Extension to rear of property to create enlarged kitchen restaurant and repositioning of female WC.

CAAG Comments: The Group considered the proposal did not invite significant conservation-related commentary and declined to comment on the application.

8) 161317, (PP) Arundel Hotel, 43-47 Carlisle Road, Eastbourne 

Cons Area: College

Proposal:Proposed change of use from hotel (C1) to serviced holiday apartments (C1), managers accommodation, together with alterations and side extensions.

CAAG Comments: The Group raised objections to the proposal, which they felt would be out of keeping with the neighbouring buildings and surrounding area, with a loss of symmetry to the terrace.

NOTED.

Supporting documents: