-
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: Coral Harding on 01424 451764 email: charding@hastings.gov.uk
Note: The recording of this meeting is available on line at: https://www.hastings.gov.uk/my_council/cm/?video=317277346
Items No. Item Apologies for Absence
Minutes:
Apologies received for Councillor Mike Edwards (Substituted by Councillor Karl Beaney)
Declarations of Interest
Minutes:
Councillor
Item
Reason
Trevor Webb
5a Land to the rear of 81 Lower Park Road
Prejudicial – friends with the lead petitioner
Phil Scott
5a Land to the rear of 81 Lower Park Road
Prejudicial – friends with lead petitioner and several objectors
Trevor Webb
Anything relating to ESCC Highways
ESCC Councillor
Phil Scott
Anything relating to ESCC Highways
ESCC Councillor
Matthew Beaver
Anything relating to ESCC Highways
ESCC Councillor
Minutes of previous meeting held on 9th January 2019 PDF 90 KB
Minutes:
RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting held on 9th January 2019 be approved by the Chair as a true record.
Notification of any additional urgent items
Minutes:
None
Planning applications attracting a petition PDF 356 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
103.1 Land to the Rear of 81 Lower Park Road, Hastings
Proposal
Outline application with all matters reserved for a proposed dwelling with access via Robert Tressell Close.
Application No.
HS/OA/18/00734
Conservation area
YES - Blacklands
Listed building
NO
Public consultation
YES - 24 letters of objection received and 1 petition of objection received.
Councillors Trevor Webb and Phil Scott left the room for discussion and voting on this item due to their prejudicial interest.
The Senior Planning Officer, Mrs Meppem advised that since the issue of the agenda 1 further letter of objection has been received.
The Senior Planning Officer presented an Outline application with all matters reserved for a proposed dwelling with access via Robert Tressell Close. She explained that all matters were reserved and that the Committee was only assessing whether the site could accommodate a single residential dwelling. She explained that tree T17 had been removed.
Members were shown plans, photographs and elevations of the application site.
The petitioner Chris Connelley was present and spoke against the application. He stated that he is the lead petitioner and speaking on behalf of over 90 petitioners. This significant response highlights the concern of residents in Kathleen Close, Robert Tressell Close and the neighbouring area. The contained and steep nature of the plot would cause challenges for the development, including the access for the construction equipment. The designs showed a three storey and not a two storey building an awkward and intrusive structure ill-suited to the setting. The area is widely used by foxes and badgers and is a very leafy conservation area buffer zone so should be protected. Outline planning permission for a conservation area buffer zone should be made with caution and a number of authorities do not grant permission to build on conservation area buffer zones. He drew attention to the areas public footpath and stairway and mentioned that the development would affect the image of this area. The removal of an existing tree undermines the Planning Officer’s statement that tree cover will soften the impact of the structure on the surroundings. It was unclear that it meets minimum standards, unclear that the essential services can be provided and unclear that the image of the area would be preserved.
The applicant, Mr John Dawes, was present to speak in support of the application. Mr Dawes said that he wanted to inform the councillors of the origin of the application. He and his wife had been owners at 81 Lower Park Road for over thirty years and had left the proposed site a natural scrubland by choice. Neighbours at number 82, which was now known as Kathleen Close, had not objected to this originally when outline planning permission was granted in 2011. He was unable to undertake works at this time due to the construction at Kathleen Close and by the time it had finished the permission had expired. Residents were made fully aware of the changes, and that nothing had changed from the original plan of ... view the full minutes text for item 103.
Other Planning Applications PDF 301 KB
Additional documents:
- HS-FA-18-00882 - The Bathing Hut Cafe, Seaside Road , item 104. PDF 88 KB
- MAP_HS_LB_18_00583_Discovery Playground , item 104. PDF 499 KB
- HS-LB-18-00583 - Discovery Playground, Old Town Hall, High Street , item 104. PDF 93 KB
- MAP_HS_FA_18_00960_2 Breeds Place , item 104. PDF 332 KB
- HS-FA-18-00960 2 Breeds Place , item 104. PDF 106 KB
- There are a further 4 documents.View the full list of documents for item 104.
Minutes:
Councillors Scott and Webb returned to the chamber
The Principal Solicitor announced that agenda items 6c and 6e have been withdrawn from the agenda. There were no objections to either application and both are on council land. The Council’s Constitution states that for an application to be considered by the Planning Committee it has to be on Council owned land and submitted by or on behalf of the Council. This does not apply to these applications.
104.1 206 Old Church Road, St Leonards on Sea
Proposal
Erection of a two storey three bedroom
detached house with car parking for new and existing dwelling
Application No.
HS/FA/18/00409
Conservation area
NO
Listed building
NO
Public consultation
YES - 5 letters of objection received
The Planning Officer, N Ranson, presented the planning application for the erection of a two storey three bedroom detached house with car parking for new and existing dwelling.
Members were shown plans, photographs and elevations of the application site.
The Planning Officer showed images of a previous planning application for the same site that had been refused which showed a flat roof building. The new application however is a more traditional build more in keeping with the local area. SUDs had initial concerns but now they have no objection. The Planning Officer showed images of the existing hard surface and the distance between the site and the neighbouring house, and images of the housing in Old Church Road.
Councillors asked questions of the Planning Officer and discussed the parking at the site as well as the windows of the proposed building. Councillors also raised concerns regarding vehicular access to the property and the possible erosion or damage to the footway. They asked if a condition could be imposed around the making suitable Cats Lane either before or after the construction has taken place.
It was agreed that an additional note to the applicant be added stating that ‘Before any use by construction vehicles Cat’s Lane Public Right of Way (PROW) photographic evidence of the state of lane and verges shall be sent to the Local Planning Authority. Reasonable measures shall be taken throughout the construction works to avoid damage to the PROW. Damage to Cat’s Lane PROW and / or its verges shall be made good within 6 weeks of the development being complete and photographs of the end state of the lane shall be forwarded to the LPA.’
Councillor Scott proposed a motion to grant the application as set out in the resolution below subject to the additional informative. This was seconded by Councillor Davies.
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: P1003 D, P1002 N, P1003 J, C10500 REV A, C10501 REV B, C10512 REV B, C10521 REV B
3. With the exception of ... view the full minutes text for item 104.
Planning Appeals and Delegated Decisions PDF 58 KB
Minutes:
The Principal Planning Officer reported that 4 planning appeals had been received and that 1 planning appeal has been dismissed.
The report was noted.
-
My council
Contact
Got a question about democratic services?
Content
The content on this page is the responsibility of our Democratic Services team.