Lewes District and Eastbourne Borough Councils' logo

Lewes and Eastbourne
Councils

Agenda item

61-63 Summerdown Road. Application ID: 190019

Minutes:

Outline application for new 64 bed nursing home (Amended description following removal of new building housing residential flats from proposal) -  OLD TOWN

 

Having declared a Prejudicial Interest, Councillor Taylor was absent from the room during discussion and voting on this item.

 

The Committee was advised by way of an addendum report, that should the recommendation to approve be agreed by members, a requirement for a local labour agreement, including monetary contributions towards monitoring, would be attached as a planning condition.

 

The Committee was further advised in the addendum report, that in response to comments from objectors regarding the assessment of the visual impact of the proposed parking at 59 Summerdown Road, that the proposed parking area would involve the demolition of single-storey extensions that have been made to the original building. It was not considered that any parts of the building to be removed possess any architectural merit and the visual integrity of the original building would be maintained. The proposed parking bays would also not result in the removal of any significant street or site landscaping.  It is not considered that the visual impact of parked cars would detract from the character of the area given that they would be directly adjacent to the highway.  It was therefore considered that the provision of this parking area would not have any unacceptable visual impact and would comply with saved policies UHT1, UHT4 and UHT7 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan and Policy D10a of the Eastbourne Core Strategy.

 

In the addendum report, it was noted that Paragraph 8.3.4.of the officers report, should have stated that 2 ½ storey buildings are prevalent within the street scene, not 3-storey buildings.

 

The addendum report referred to additional correspondence that had been received from the Planning Consultant acting on behalf of the neighbours objecting to the scheme, stating that the provision of parking at 59 Summerdown Road had not been properly assessed. Plans should be marked as illustrative only as, if not, the Local Planning Authority cannot reserve matters shown on them by condition.  An Appeal Inspector would also consider these plans as part of the application unless annotated otherwise.  A suite of suggested conditions had been provided.   Officer response:  Further clarification regarding the provision of parking is provided within the addendum. It is noted that these works could be carried out without the need for planning permission, subject to agreement with ESCC Highways.   The plans showing indicative layout and scale would not be listed as approved plans on the decision notice, as informative can also be added to make clear that these plans have been assessed as indicative only.  It is agreed that a condition relating to the southern wing of the building would be reasonable and appropriate in order to safeguard the amenities of the occupants of 65 Summerdown Road.  The Committee were advised of an additional condition to the resolution, should the application be approved.

 

Helen Greenhalgh, local resident, addressed the Committee in objection, raising concern regarding the lack of detail in the application, the number of rooms and that the scheme would be too dominant in the area. 

 

Rebecca Maddell, Heritage Champion, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. She stated the scheme would set a precedent and was out of keeping with the area.

 

Councillor Ungar, spoke as an East Sussex County Councillor and as a relative of a neighbour  in objection to the application.  He raised concern regarding amenity, parking and wildlife.

 

Mr Simon Franks, applicant, spoke in response to the concerns raised, stating that the building was already a functioning nursing home and would not set a precedent or result in overdevelopment by increasing by 10%.  He said increasing demands and changes in requirements had been addressed in the application and that the outline application was submitted to address concerns.

 

In discussing the application, the Committee felt there was a lack of detail and raised concern regarding the number of rooms and the height and scale of development, stating that a 3½ storey building would be overbearing and out of keeping in the area. 

 

Members were advised that further details would be covered in a detailed application and that the number of beds could be accommodated on site without harm to the street scene. Also, if the building was lost to residential use, there would be a loss of employer. 

 

Councillor Diplock proposed a motion to refuse the application. This was seconded by Councillor Maxted.

 

Resolved (Unanimous): That outline permission be refused as set out in the resolution below:-

 

The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that a development of the scale specified in the application description can be accommodated within the site without resulting in a detrimental impact upon visual and residential amenities.  The proposed development therefore conflicts with saved policies UHT1, UHT4, NE28 and HO20 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan and policy D10a of the Eastbourne Core Strategy.   

 

 

Supporting documents: