Lewes District and Eastbourne Borough Councils' logo

Lewes and Eastbourne
Councils

Agenda item

Arundel Court, 20 Arundel Road. Application ID: 171376.

Minutes:

Outline Planning Permission (Access, Appearance, Layout and Scale) for proposed demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 19 flats together with parking spaces – UPPERTON. 

 

The committee was advised that further comments from the Specialist Advisor for Arboriculture, following the submission of Arboriculture Method Statement and Arboricultural Impact Assessment, had been received. It was still not considered that the footprint of the building could safely accommodate the tree and its vulnerable rooting system.  The proposed layout placed parts of the front elevation slightly forward of the outermost limit of the original building. This directly encroached in to the root protection zone (RPA) of the protected Beech tree. The nearby road (and underground services) and the building itself would have significantly constrained the volume of soil available to the tree’s rooting system. This in turn meant that any incursion in to the RPA would result in a disproportionate loss of the rooting system which would have a detrimental impact on the long-term health of the tree.  Taking into consideration the excavation required to construct the foundations, the process of which would inevitably encroach further in to the RPA, and the need for scaffolding which would require further pruning back of the canopy, the cumulative effects of this would accrue to inflict significant damage on both the below and above ground parts of the tree.

 

Mr Smith addressed the committee in objection stating that parking would be an issue for the local residents and that the scale of the proposal was too large for the site.

 

Mr Sampson, agent for the applicant addressed the committee in response stating that the applicant had addressed the objections made and that site was not viable for affordable housing.  Any overlooking issues could be addressed with obscure glazing.

 

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

1) The proposed development fails to meet the requirements of the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2017 by providing no on site affordable housing or a commuted sum payment contrary to Policy D5 of the Core Strategy Local Plan

2) By virtue of the proposed footprint, the close proximity to either side boundary of the site and the height of the proposed building and the location of windows providing direct overlooking the development would be an overbearing and unneighbourly form of development detrimental to the amenity of adjacent properties (residential care home and residential flats) contrary to the Core Planning Principles of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Policy B2 of the Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 and Saved Policy HO20 of the Borough Plan 2007.

3) By virtue of the lack of outlook and light to front elevation flats by virtue of the location of the TPO tree, and the small size of 6 of the units (30% of the proposed units) the scheme is considered to provide substandard accommodation detrimental to the amenity of future occupiers contrary to the Core Planning Principles of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policy B2 of the Core Strategy Local Plan 2013.

4) The development would have a significant detrimental impact on the long term health of the protected beech tree; the loss of the protected tree and the general loss of trees and soft landscaping to the site is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area contrary to Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, D10a of the Core Strategy Local Plan and Saved Policy UHT4 and UHT5 of the Borough Plan 2007.

5) The overall layout and scale of the development is considered unacceptable in terms of the size of the plot, by virtue of the height, footprint, siting within the site detailed design bulk and scale and the loss of the green openness of the rear garden by virtue of the scale of the development the proposal is therefore contrary to Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Policy D10a of the Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 and Saved Policies UHT1, UHT and UHT5 of the Borough Plan 2007.

6) By virtue of the lack of mechanism in place to secure the works to widen and improve the access the access is considered inadequate to serve the proposed development resulting in severe highways impacts and impacts on the safety of pedestrians 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.

 

 

Supporting documents: