Agenda item

Proposed change of use of part of the surface area car park to Langney Shopping Centre and construction of a single storey industrial building for use as a tyre fitting, tyre repair and wheel replacement premises containing four bays for customer vehicles and associated office, staff area and reception (Amended scheme following refusal of application 180257) – LANGNEY.

Mr Kifford addressed the committee in objection stating that this application did not differ from the previous one which had been refused. He also stated that there would be disruption from noise and smells and that it would be an eye sore for residents in Fern Close.

Councillor Tester, Ward Councillor, addressed the committee in objection stating that he agreed with Mr Kifford’s comments and that the scheme was no different.  The proposed use was not ‘retail’ and that Langney Shopping Centre was the second most important shopping centre outside of the town centre.  He also felt that this proposal would jeopardise the long term sustainability of the site.

Mr Forland, applicant, addressed the committee in objection stating that the design of the building was modern and energy efficient with excellent sound proofing to mitigate resident’s concerns.  The building would be secure at night with CCTV and shutters to prevent vandalism and anti-social behaviour.  The proposal would not include major mechanical works to vehicles and tyres would be stored and disposed of in an appropriate and environmentally friendly way.  He also stated that the proposal would be adjacent to the B2191 which was well used and saw some 80 bus journey’s per day.

The committee discussed the application and agreed that there had not been any significant changes to the scheme and that therefore their objections remained the same.

Resolved: (By 5 votes to 2) That delegated authority be given to the Interim Head of Planning to negotiate, with the applicants, a more suitable location for the proposed development, which would then be the subject of a further planning application.  

2. Should the negotiations not provide a more suitable location then; permission be refused on the grounds that:

a. The proposed development by reason of its design, layout and appearance would result in a form of development that would incongruous and discordant with the prevailing pattern of development in the area and as such fails to maintain local distinctiveness. The scheme is found to be discordant with Policies Policy D10a of the Councils Core Strategy.

b. The proposed development would be considered to introduce an ‘ industrial activity’ within this prime retail location and such may have an adverse impact upon the retail function , supporting car parking and thereby have the potential to impact upon the long term viability  of this District Centre. The scheme is found to be discordant with Policy C8 and D4 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan. 

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.