Agenda item

Amended Proposal for development of 4no. Residential units to include 2no. 1bed houses and 2no. 1 bed flats with courtyard paving to the front and garden areas to the rear. No parking proposed – ST ANTHONYS.

Mr Baker addressed the committee in objection stating that scheme would be an overdevelopment of the site resulting in increased pressure on parking.  He also stated that there would be a risk of flooding to the site.

Councillor Tutt, Ward Councillor, addressed the committee in objection stating that the scheme was an overdevelopment, with a narrow access route which would exacerbate the flooding in the area.  He also stated that refuse collection would create issues with bin storage and placement on collection days.

Mr Smith, architect for the applicant, responded stating that the design was an efficient use of the space available and that plans had been amended to resolve issues  previously raised by the Environment and Highways agencies.

The committee was advised that a petition of 19 signatures had been received from local residents.  Revised drawings had been received highlighting the ground floor finished floor level in relation to the proposed flood level.

The committee discussed the application and agreed that the proposals were an overdevelopment, with a lack of parking and that refuse collection on site would cause issues for the surrounding neighbourhood.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be refused on the grounds that:

1) The proposed development by reason of its scale, mass and design would be is unsympathetic and detrimental to character and appearance of the site in particular and the wider area in general resulting in an unsympathetic form of development, detrimental to the visual appearance and wider range views of the site as well as giving rise to an overbearing and unneighbourly form of development contrary to Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Policy D10a and B2 of the Core Strategy Local Plan 2013, and saved policies UHT1, UHT4,UHT16 and HO20 of the Borough Plan 2007.

2) By virtue of the narrow width and length of the access road there is a requirement for the refuse and recycling bins to be presented at the threshold of a main highway (Seaside and or Windermere Crescent). No bin enclosure/refuse presentation ion station  has been submitted with the application and in the absence of such information it is considered that the proposal may lead to indiscriminate and random storage of refuse/recycling equipment which may lead to visual clutter and highway and pedestrian safety issues. The proposal would be contrary to Policy D10a and B2 of the Core Strategy

3) It is accepted that the scheme promotes a car free development however in the Councils opinion given the location of the site and its distance from Eastbourne Town Centre (transport hub and other infrastructure) that there would be a propensity for the new owners to have own a car.  In the absence of any mitigating circumstances (car club etc) it is likely that the any car parking would be indiscriminate in the locality which may impact upon the free flow of traffic in the area. The proposal is considered to the to give rise to highway and pedestrian safety issues contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Appeal

Should the applicant appeal the decision the appropriate course of action to be followed, taking into account the criteria set by the Planning Inspectorate, is considered to be written representations.