Outline planning permission (Access and Layout) for demolition of the existing house and the construction of a new building housing 17 one and two bedroom apartments, with associated access and parking – MEADS

The Committee was advised by way of an addendum report, that the application had received one additional letter of objection commenting on traffic speed and limited visibility from Darley Road. The officer response was that East Sussex County Council (ESCC) Highways had raised no objection to the application.

Mr Colin Couch, local resident, addressed the Committee in objection, stating that the scheme would cause overdevelopment and result in overlooking and loss of privacy.

Councillor Smart, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee (from the public gallery) in objection, stating that the scheme was of poor design and visually intrusive and out of scale and character for the area.  He recommended additional conditions be added to the resolution, to strengthen the officers’ reason for refusal.

Mr James Caldwell, agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application, stating that the applicant had followed government guidance and that the scheme would not be deliverable if affordable housing was imposed.  He further advised that officer advice should be consistent.

Councillor Metcalfe MBE arrived at this juncture and took no part in the discussion or debate and did not vote on this application.

The Committee was informed that a planning application submitted and approved in 1978 for flats had not been progressed by the applicant due to a land ownership issue. 

Officers advised that current concerns raised regarding overlooking were not deemed to be intrusive given the distance between the buildings was considered sufficient. In addition, access matters could be addressed by conditions or at the Reserved Matters Stage.

The Committee discussed the application and felt that the scheme was too obtrusive and would cause an overuse of the site. Members raised concerns regarding inappropriate access for refuse vehicles, lack of a public footpath, speed of traffic, limited visibility and unsuitability of Meads Brow as the main access point.

Councillor Taylor proposed a motion to refuse the application, and was seconded by Councillor Coles.

Resolved (Unanimous):  That permission be refused for the reasons set out in the officers’ report, and the following additional reasons requested at the meeting:-

The proposed development would, by reason of the layout and scale, be likely to be discordant and unduly dominant in relation to the form, scale and character of the existing housing within the immediate locality. The proposed development therefore conflicts with policies UHT1 and UHT4 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan.

The failure to provide direct footpath access to the site entrance results in an unsatisfactory arrangement that would present a danger of pedestrians coming into conflict with motorised vehicles entering and leaving the site.  The proposed development therefore conflicts with para. 109 of the Revised NPPF (2018)

In addition, an informative would be added to highlight members concerns in relation to the suitability of the access to Meads Brow from Beachy Head Road for increased activity as well as the poor quality of the footpath network in the wider surrounding area.