Planning permission for demolition of existing building, and redevelopment to provide x16 residential units (use Class C3) (x8 net additional), new vehicle access on Granville Road and car parking. (Resubmission following refusal of p/c 180040). – MEADS.
The committee was advised that this application had been determined against the Revised National Planning Policy Framework in July 2018.
Councillor Ballard requested to speak against application 180985, Kempston 3 Granville Road, Eastbourne, but was refused by the Chair as there was already one Councillor speaking against the application. This was amicably agreed before the meeting.
Ms Terry addressed the committee in objection of the application, stating that the application was an overdevelopment of the site, the owners had tried to sell the property at an unrealistic sale price and were not marketing the property properly, and that none of the proposed properties in the application would be affordable housing.
Ms Madell (Heritage Champion) addressed the committee in objection of the application, stating that the application worked against preserving the heritage and townscape and was not complimentary to the area.
Councillor Smart addressed the committee in objection of the application, stating that a draft report regarding an extension to the College Conservation area would be presented to the committee in January, and that the property may then be within a Conservation area.
Ms Nagy addressed the committee and was given the opportunity to speak for 6 minutes because she was speaking on behalf of the applicant and herself. She spoke in support of the application, stating that the site had been renovated and was therefore not a historic building. The redevelopment would work in the public interest as it would provide good quality accommodation to the Meads area. The proposed building complied with the parameters and made use of the site well as the design included many features which referred back to the original building, such as the colours of bricks, balconies.
The Chair informed the committee that commenting on the marketing of the site or the demolition of the existing building was not material and should be withdrawn from consideration, referring the committee to paragraph 8.2.4 which specified that the existing building could be demolished without planning permission.
Officer informed the committee that the application could not be refused because of the likelihood that the site could become part of a Conservation area.
Mr Saville, applicant, was present but chose not to speak.
The committee discussed the application and agreed that the proposed building was too large and not keeping with the existing character of the Meads area as it would be removing the garden and replacing it with concrete.
The committee also requested that should the applicant wish to appeal, such an appeal should be in the form of an informal hearing so as to allow all interested parties the opportunity to raise their concerns.
Councillor Taylor proposed a motion against the officer’s recommendation, to refuse the application as set out in the resolution below. This was seconded by Councillor Robinson.
Resolved: (Unanimous) That the planning application be refused on the grounds that the proposal, by virtue of the height, footprint, bulk, scale, detailed design and materials is an overdevelopment of the plot which does not respect the character and appearance of the Area of High Townscape Value nor the pattern of development in the area, contrary to saved policies UHT1, UHT4, UHT5 and UHT16 of the Borough Plan 2007, and policies D10 and D10a of the Core Strategy Local Plan 2013.
Should the applicant appeal the decision the appropriate course of action to be followed, taking into account the criteria set by the Planning Inspectorate, was considered to be an informal hearing.