Lewes District and Eastbourne Borough Councils' logo

Lewes and Eastbourne
Councils

Agenda item

2-4 Moy Avenue. Application ID: 180006.

Minutes:

Proposed refurbishment and extension to existing former telephone exchange building and the construction of two, part two, three and four storey buildings to the rear to provide a total of 85 residential units, 58, one and two bed flats and 27, two storey, one and two bed maisonettes. A total of 88 on site car parking spaces will be provided – ST ANTHONYS.

 

The committee was advised, by way of an addendum report, that since the publication of the agenda, 27 further responses had been received and were summarised as follows:

 

1. The application wrong for the site

2. Overlooking

3. There would be highway and parking problems

4. It would be overbearing to properties in the areas

5. There would be a loss of privacy

6. There would be an adverse impact on living conditions

7. The local infrastructure would be impacted (doctors schools etc)

8. The visibility splay will cause issues / blocking causing safety issues

9. Loss of light

10. Not suitable for disabled access to the flats, not compliant with Part M of the building regulations

11. Parking for disabled were few and poorly located and designed

12. Too many units

13. Located on a school route

14. Right to light

15. When assessed on nearby development site may have a communicative impact.

 

Ann Clarke addressed the committee in objection stating that the development was not in keeping with the surrounding area, Council policy states that there should be no more than 42 dwellings on the site.  She stated that there would be a loss of light, overshadowing and loss of privacy.  Ms Clarke was also concerned about the effect on the infrastructure, which would harm the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

Nicola Mason, addressed the committee on behalf of the Neighbourhood Panel, stating that there would be a loss of amenity space, loss of light and the proposed access and visibility splays would not be sufficient or safe for access and egress.  Ms Mason also mentioned the lack of wheel chair access to the ground floor flats.

 

Councillor Tutt, Leader of the Council and Ward Councillor, addressed the committee in objection stating that the principle of development was supported by residents however the number of dwellings had now trebled.  He stated that the applicant had met with residents and himself to discuss amendments which had subsequently not been made. He stated that there would be a loss of light and privacy and agreed with Ms Mason regarding the access / egress to the site and with Ms Clarke regarding the effect on the infrastructure.

 

Simon Bareham, addressed the committee on behalf of the applicant and stated that the proposal was a well-designed scheme for open market and affordable housing.  Both the applicant and Officers had met to resolve the Inspector’s concerns.  The number of dwellings had been reduced to mitigate the overlooking concerns.  Both the height and appearance of the proposal had been acceptable to the Inspector.  

 

The committee discussed the application and felt that the increase in the number of dwellings would have a serious and detrimental effect on the infrastructure and neighbouring residents.  Members were also concerned that the Horsey sewer path through the site had not been established.

 

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

 

By virtue of the scale of development, the number of units, the height, bulk and mass of the proposed buildings on the site (blocks 2 and 3) the proposal is considered an unneighbourly over development of the site with an overbearing and unneighbourly relationship, detrimental to the amenity of the occupiers of the surrounding residential properties by way of loss of outlook, privacy from overlooking to properties and their rear gardens contrary to saved policy HO20 of the Borough Plan 2007, Policy B2 of the Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 and Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

 

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: