-
Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, Muriel Matters House, Breeds Place, Hastings, TN34 3UY. Please enter the building via the Tourist Information Centre entrance.
Contact: Democratic Services on 01424 451484 email: democraticservices@hastings.gov.uk
Items No. Item Apologies for Absence
Minutes:
Apologies for absence received from Councillors Beaver and Roark.
Councillor Edwards was present as a substitute for Councillor Beaver, and Councillor Sinden was present as a substitute for Councillor Roark.
Declarations of Interest
Minutes:
Councillor
Minute
Interest
All Labour councillors
303c
Personal – A signatory of the petition is known to Labour councillors as a former party activist
Roberts
303d
Prejudicial – Has been in contact with the lead petitioner and visited the site although not regarding the current application
Scott
303d
Prejudicial – Knows the lead petitioner as both a constituent and a friend
Scott
All applications relating to highways
Personal – East Sussex County Councillor
Marlow-Eastwood
All applications relating to highways
Personal – East Sussex County Councillor
Marlow-Eastwood
303c
Personal – Has received correspondence from the lead petitioner
Minutes of previous meeting PDF 199 KB
Minutes:
RESOLVED- that the minutes of the meeting held on 14th October 2021 be approved as a true record.
Planning applications attracting a petition
Minutes:
The Chair called agenda item 5b (application no. HS/FA/20/00715) first in order to allow time for the petitioner on item 5a (application no. HS/FA/20/00959) to arrive at the meeting.
Land south west of Newts Way (HS/FA/20/00715) PDF 393 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Proposal
Construction of a single dwelling house which will include 3 bedrooms, work from home space, gardens, parking and access to Newts Way
Application No.
HS/FA/20/00715
Conservation Area
No
Listed Building
No
Public Consultation
Yes - 22 letters of objection; 12 letters of support; 1 petition of objection; and 1 petition of support.
The Principal Planning Officer, Ms Zulu, presented the application for construction of a single dwelling house which will include 3 bedrooms, work from home space, gardens, parking and access to Newts Way.
Since publication of the report a letter was received from barrister Simon Bell advising the Planning Committee not to follow the officer’s recommendations for reasons including, the report shows a concerning level of unconscious bias.
The site is located at the junction of Newts Way and Darwell Close. To the north there is a stream and equipped play area owned by Hastings Borough Council. To the south there are dwellings which front onto The Sedges.
The application site contains underground attenuation drainage pipes and tanks. The footprint of the proposed dwelling takes a rectangular shape as the majority of the site cannot be developed due to the underground pipes and tanks.
The proposal is modern in design and rectangular in form, consisting of a playroom and car park on the ground floor; open plan kitchen/dinner, living room, library and en-suite bedroom on the first floor; and office/bedroom and two further en-suite bedrooms on the second-floor.
The loss of green space is an important determining factor. The application site was designated a green space in a previous application; however, this green space was not reserved for the lifetime of the development in the Section 106 agreement for permission HS/DS/88/1079. Over time the site has become a valuable open space which positively contributes to the appearance and character of the area. The loss of green space to housing would prejudice the open nature of the site and be detrimental to the visual and special character of the area, contrary to policy.
It is determined that the development as proposed would not fit well with the traditional character and appearance of the surrounding housing estate. This is not to say that modern proposals are wrong, but that the development has failed to take the context of the area into consideration and does not improve the aesthetic of the area.
The site area is uniform in design, plot type and plot depth. Front elevations of dwellings in the area address the street and linear development is the norm. Given this it is determined that the proposed development is out of character with the established character and appearance of the area and is not appropriate.
The proposed development poses a risk to the health of an established mature oak tree which currently makes a positive visual impact on Newts Way.
It is also concluded that the development as proposed would cause direct overlooking into the gardens of neighbouring properties in direct contravention of agreed policies.
In conclusion ... view the full minutes text for item 303a
Land south west of Newts Way (HS/FA/20/00959) PDF 389 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Proposal
Construction of four family dwelling houses which will include work from home space, gardens, parking and access to Newts Way
Application No.
HS/FA/20/00959
Conservation Area
No
Listed Building
No
Public Consultation
Yes - 34 letters of objection; 60 letters of support; 1 petition of objection; and 1 petition of support.
The Principal Planning Officer, Ms Zulu, presented the application for construction of four family dwelling houses which will include work from home space, gardens, parking and access to Newts Way.
Since publication of the report a statement has been received from Jonathan Braddick, Chair of the Design Review Panel (DRP) explaining the role of the DRP. The DRP provides independent, impartial and multidisciplinary feedback to local authorities and applicants. Such feedback is a material consideration when determining planning applications.
The DRP met on two occasions to review the proposals and advise that they are supportive, although further work is required to justify the development such as 3D modelling, long site sections and context analysis. Following this the applicant submitted an amended scheme which is being discussed.
Additionally, a letter was received from barrister Simon Bell advising the Planning Committee not to follow the officer’s recommendations.
The application is for the same site as the previous item and the footprint of the proposed development is very similar. The application proposes a terrace of four dwellings in a rectangular form taking an L shape. The proposed development sits against the north and eastern boundary of the site and includes a communal garden to the front of the houses and 1 parking space per dwelling.
This is a revised scheme which has been submitted following concerns raised by officers and the Design Review Panel (DRP). As such the revised scheme before the Committee has not been reviewed by the DRP.
The amended scheme is of a modern design with varying roof pitches, heights, and roof forms. It is recognised that the proposal is sophisticated in design and has interest. However, it is considered that development as proposed is not appropriate for the area. The proposal is uncharacteristic and does not correspond to the size and scale of local development and fails to respond to the context of its surroundings, contrary to policies.
As with the previous application officers have concerns with the proximity of the development to tree T1.
The council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing supply and as such, paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework is engaged and the positives of the scheme are to be weighed against the negative. It is considered in this application that the negatives of the scheme considerably and demonstrably outweigh the positives and as such it is recommended for refusal.
Councillors were shown plans, photographs and elevations of the application site.
Ms Owusu, the applicant, was present and spoke in favour of the application. Ms Owusu said there is a hierarchy of open space, each house has a private terrace and the mini-meadow area could be fenced off. There are also private ... view the full minutes text for item 303b
Land rear of 23 Martineau Lane (HS/FA/21/00712) PDF 316 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Erection of two to three storey detached dwelling (revision to HS/FA/17/00468) (part retrospective)
Application No.
HS/FA/21/00712
Conservation Area
No
Listed Building
No
Public Consultation
Yes - 50 letters of objection; 30 letters of support; and 1 petition of objection.
Ms Fellows, Senior Planning Officer, presented the application for erection of two to three storey detached dwelling (revision to HS/FA/17/00468) (part retrospective).
The Senior Planning Officer reported that three late representations were received, all objecting to the application.
The representations raised questions in respect of the officer’s report and assessment of the application. The representations also raised issues regarding retaining walls in breach of Section 5 of the Hastings Borough Council Act 1988 and the barristers report referred to in the officer’s report, but which is not in the public domain. However, the matters relating to the retaining wall and barrister’s report are not material considerations in regard to the application.
The application seeks to regularise the development that has been built on the site. An application for a similar development was approved in 2017 and during construction amendments were been made and therefore the dwelling is not built-in accordance with the approved 2017 application. The difference between the two applications relates to soft landscaping around the dwelling house.
In 2018 a discharge of condition relating to hard landscaping was approved and in 2020 a revised landscaping scheme was submitted, which was assessed to contain changes which would be too significant for consideration under that application type. It was subsequently refused on that basis. On the same basis the 2018 approval for hard landscaping was revoked. On challenge the council sought legal advice which confirmed that the correct procedure had not been followed. Therefore the 2018 application is valid and forms a fallback position which could be implemented by the applicant.
Councillors were shown plans, photographs and elevations of the application site.
Mr Coombes, the lead petitioner, was present and spoke against the application. Mr Coombes said little weight has been given to the fact that had the formal enforcement request made back in 2019 been implemented as per the enforcement protocol, we may not be in the current situation. Fundamentally this is identical to the April 2021 application, which was refused, the only difference being the addition of a few shrubs and screening plants in pots which cover planning breaches. Mr Coombes said he would have thought that these superficial amendments in respect of the hard and soft landscaping would be insufficient and contrary to policies DM1 and EN7. Since approval in 2017 this is now the third retrospective application, including the 2018 refusal. Mr Coombes said he had received an email from Richard Temple, Principal Planner, on 7th May 2019, and quoted ‘Please be aware that the approval of the condition is purely for drainage it is not an approval of an amendment to approved floor plans of this application. Should the development not be carried out in compliance with approval the applicant still risks enforcement action. ... view the full minutes text for item 303c
Rose Cottage, 4 Gillsmans Hill (HS/LB/21/00664) PDF 410 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Installation of new floor to existing basement store.
Application No.
HS/LB/21/00664
Conservation Area
Yes – Springfield Road
Listed Building
Yes – Grade II
Public Consultation
Yes - 6 letters of objection; and 1 petition of objection.
Councillors Roberts and Scott, having declared a prejudicial interest, left the Council Chamber during discussion of this application. Councillor Cox chaired the meeting for the duration of the item.
Mr Richard, Planning and Assistant Conservation Officer, presented the application for the installation of new floor to existing basement store.
Since publication of the report one further comment was received.
Mr Richards explained that the property was previously compulsorily purchased by East Sussex County Council Highways in order to make way for a new road. The road was never built and the cottage was released back into private ownership. The applicant is also in ownership of 66 Sedlescombe Road South with land from this site being used to provide Rose Cottage with a garden as part of a wider development.
The proposal is to relay the basement floor, which is currently of an earthen appearance, in order to create a habitable space for use as a home office. As this will change the internal appearance of a Grade II listed building, listed building consent is required.
In reference to objections raised regarding land ownership it was confirmed that the applicant has completed a Certificate A notice which states that they are the sole owners of the land in which they are proposing to carry out works. Officers have consulted the Land Registry as a matter of prudence to ascertain which properties own which pieces of land. The title plans have satisfied the council that it’s duties as a Local Planning Authority can be discharged correctly.
The proposal is for a floor consisting of limecrete and lime finish with brick slips and cobbles. A sample of the finish must be submitted for approval as per the proposed conditions. It is concluded that this will cause no harm to the heritage asset and will be of benefit by creating an additional living space.
Councillors were shown plans, photographs and elevations of the application site.
Mr Piggott, lead petitioner, was present and spoke against the application. Mr Piggott said the petitioners and objectors support Rose Cottage being reoccupied after a sensitive restoration under proper controls. However, heritage requirements have been violated from 2018 onwards and 10 weeks ago enforcement action was taken. Mr Piggott said the cellar floor should not cause any objections. However, the application is a Trojan horse, raising the matter of sole ownership. Mr Piggott said he had been in possession of Olive Lodge for 30 years and he is not sure why the title plans do not agree the physical boundaries. . Mr Piggott said he was advised that the applicant should mark all adjoining ownership land in blue ink. In 13 applications this has never been shown and the Sedlescombe Road South land should not be considered as, according to the ... view the full minutes text for item 303d
Other Planning Applications
Minutes:
Councillors Roberts and Scott returned to the Council Chamber for the remaining items.
9 Kite Close (HS/FA/21/00615) PDF 503 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Proposed two storey side extension & alterations
Application No.
HS/FA/21/00615
Conservation Area
No
Listed Building
No
Public Consultation
Yes - 1 letter of objection; and 8 letters of support
Ms Wood, Assistant Planning Manager, presented the application for a proposed two storey side extension & alterations.
The application is a resubmission of a previously refused application, which was refused under delegated powers.
The size of the planned development has been reduced since the previous application. However, it is still considered that the impact, scale and design features of the proposal are not appropriate and will cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.
The location of the property is quite prominent in the street scene and the development will enclose what is generally a spacious area. There is a general uniformity to the dwellings in the area and the proposed extension will unbalance the symmetry of the street scene.
Councillors were shown plans, photographs and elevations of the application site.
Councillor Roberts proposed refusal, seconded by Councillor Sinden.
RESOLVED (by 8 for, to 1 against, with 1 abstention) that full planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed two storey side extension, by virtue of its mass, location and proximity to the side boundary, would result in a form of development that would result in the loss of the spacious character at the junction of Kite Close and the Kite Close cul-de-sac. The proposed development would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy DM1 of the Hastings Development Management Plan 2015
2. The proposed two storey side extension will unbalance the predominant symmetrical form between the host property and its attached neighbour at 10 Kite Close. The asymmetry will be clearly visible in this prominent corner plot location and would result in significant detriment to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy DM3 of the Development Management Plan 2015.
3. The unique and prominent positioning of the dwelling on the corner of Kite Close and its associated cul-de-sac, means that sufficient design detail should be included in the south side elevation, creating a focal point when travelling southwards down Kite Close. Insufficient detail is included within this proposed side elevation, and as such, it fails to create an active frontage that causes harm to the streetscene, contrary to Policy DM1 of the Development Management Plan 2015.
Notes to the applicant:
Statement of positive engagement: In dealing with this application Hastings Borough Council has actively sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
61 Bembrook Road (HS/FA/21/00696) PDF 472 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Proposal
Demolition of conservatory. Proposed two storey side extension, part two storey and single storey rear extension and front entrance porch
Application No.
HS/FA/21/00696
Conservation Area
No
Listed Building
No
Public Consultation
Yes
Ms Fellows, Senior Planning Officer, presented the application for demolition of conservatory, to be replaced by a proposed two storey side extension, part two storey and single storey rear extension and front entrance porch.
The Senior Planning Officer confirmed the application has been brought to the Planning Committee as it has been submitted by a serving employee in a restricted post.
The site is just off Bembrook Road within its own Cul-de-Sac. The topography of the road is such that the ground level rises as you move up the Cul-de-Sac towards the site. The proposed development will extend around 1-metre beyond the existing conservatory.
Councillors were shown plans, photographs and elevations of the application site.
Councillor Edwards proposed the approval of the recommendations, seconded by Councillor Bacon.
RESOLVED (unanimously) that full planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 6938/EX/A, 6938/LBP, 6938/1/A and 6938/2
3. With the exception of internal works the building works required to carry out the development allowed by this permission must only be carried out within the following times:-
Monday to Friday: 08.00 - 18.00
Saturday: 08.00 - 13.00
No working on Sundays or Public Holidays.
4. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
5. The ground floor shower room window and the first-floor bathroom window on the south-east elevation and the first-floor bedroom window on north-west elevation shall be obscure glazed with obscure glass to a minimum level of obscurity equivalent to Pilkington Texture Glass Level 3, or similar equivalent and be permanently fixed shut and non-opening below 1.7 metres from finished floor level.Reasons:
1. This condition is imposed in accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3. To protect the amenity of the occupiers of nearby properties.
4. To ensure that the finished extension matches the appearance of the existing dwelling.
5. In order to protect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.Notes to the applicant:
1. Failure to comply with any condition imposed on this permission may result in enforcement action without further warning.
2. Statement of positive engagement: In dealing with this application Hastings Borough Council has actively sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework.Planning Appeals and Delegated Decisions PDF 198 KB
Minutes:
The Assistant Planning Services Manager informed the Committee that two new appeals had been received but none had been determined since the last Committee meeting.
The Committee noted the report.
(The Chair declared the meeting closed at 9.40pm)
-
My council
Contact
Got a question about democratic services?
Content
The content on this page is the responsibility of our Democratic Services team.