Agenda item

Proposed three bedroom dwelling – LANGNEY.

Mrs Caffery addressed the committee in objection stating that the scheme would result in overlooking, increased parking issues and had the potential to exacerbate the flooding issues.

Mr Tinwell addressed the committee in response stating that the scheme had been designed to match the surrounding properties and that this included the materials proposed.  He also stated that parking had been provided on site and it was his aim to support and protect any wildlife located on site.  The Flood Risk Assessment would be adhered to, as would current planning standards.

For the purposes of clarity, and to directly address Mrs Caffrey’s concerns over the accuracy of the planning application, the concerns raised and the officer’s response are detailed below:

a) There were currently two vehicle spaces – there was one?

·         There was one parking space in front of the garage. The garage was considered to provide one parking space and therefore there were two parking spaces

b) There would be four vehicle spaces in proposed development – where? The plans showed two.

·         The existing dwelling benefited from two parking space.  The proposed dwelling was to be served by two parking spaces and therefore there would be four parking spaces overall

c) There were no protected species in the area – there were bats and toads (later not protected but rare)

·         The site lies between two Local Wildlife Sites however, there were no significant concerns with regard to ecology as the ecological assessment was carried out in accordance with best practice and the site offers negligible bat roost potential (please refer to report for more details)

d) The site was not vacant – it had been unoccupied for approximately six months

·         Reference to the existing property’s vacancy or non-vacancy within the application documents could not be located

·         Whether the existing property had been vacant for a short period of time or not was not a consideration relevant to the decision to approve or refuse consent

e) There were no trees or hedges on development site – there were at least two very mature trees on site, which would have to be removed

·         Report states, “There were not considered to be any negative impacts on trees of any significance resulting following development”

·         The Specialist Advisor (Arboriculture) stated the following: “[The] trees would be categorised as C3 under the cascade chart of BS5837, and therefore should not be considered a constraint to this development”

For the avoidance of doubt, there were no concerns over the accuracy of the detail of the planning application.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous)That permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) Time 2) Drawings 3) Development in accordance with FRA 4) Hours of development 5) Matching materials to Goldsmith Close 6) Enhancements implemented in accordance with Ecology Assessment 7) Remove PD windows from flank.

Informative:

A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, Please contact Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk

The applicant’s attention is drawn to the need for a licence for the construction of the new access. The applicant should contact East Sussex Highways on 0345 60 80 193 to apply for an appropriate licence/agreement to ensure the construction is up to an acceptable standard.

The applicant was advised to seek the installation of an ‘H’ bar line to the front of the parking spaces to ensure ease of access and egress.  This can be obtained by This can be obtained by contacting East Sussex Highways on 0345 60 80 193.