14-16 Harley Way, St. Leonards on Sea
Outline application (seeking approval of Access), for the erection of up to 4 no.2 bed apartments
15 letters of objection received and 1 petition of objection
and 1 neutral comment received.
Having arrived after the start of the item, Councillor Sorrell-Eastwood sat back from the meeting and took no part in the discussion and voting of this item.
The Planning Services Manager, Mrs Evans presented this report for an outline application (seeking approval of Access), for the erection of up to 4 no.2 bed apartments.
The previous application on the site, HA/FA/16/00568 was refused on 16 June 2017 for the following reasons:
• Mass, scale, height, prominence and overall design (including window formation and materials used), and lack of soft landscaping, will result in a form of development that fails to protect and enhance local character – Outline application so the detail of scheme will form a future reserved matters application, not for consideration now.
• Potential harm to habitat and European protected species – Ecology and habitats survey confirmed no impact, accepted by Environment and Natural Resource Manager with conditions
• Potential risk to land stability - Enzygo Geoenvironmental Limited confirmed with appropriate site investigation and design the obvious constraints should not prohibit development”.
• Parking spaces do not meet minimum measurements – size of 4 parking spaces increased
Members were informed of several updates to the report:-
6 additional representations received taking the number of objectors from 16 to 22. Petition – additional 37 signatures provided. New issues raised that are not considered by the Committee report include:-
• Damage will be caused to adjoining garage block that would make them unusable – Unlikely as no built form here, this will form part of condition regarding ground stability
• Potential for obstruction to emergency vehicles – No objection raised by highways, to be considered by CEMP condition.
An objector also submitted a number of objections that were submitted on the previous application HAS/FA/16/00568. These cannot be formally considered as part of this application; a number of these objectors have separately resubmitted objections that raised matters that have been considered in the determination of the application.
Members were shown plans, photographs and elevations of the application site.
Sharon Melville-Smith, petitioner, was present and spoke against the application. She said she had serious concerns regarding parking problems, large vehicles manoeuvring, the loss of play area and loss of view. She referred to the National Planning Policy Framework and Council policies. She said the previous application had been refused and that this application had been submitted to see how the challenges will be addressed. It had been re-named to an outline application to seek approval for access. As such no details had been provided and no full site investigation had been undertaken. She invited members to visit the site.
Brian Woods, WS Planning, applicant, spoke in support of the application. He said that land stability was not a problem at the site. He said if the application was granted it would help the Council to meet it’s 5 year housing requirement as it was a windfall site. He explained that 5 separate reports had been submitted regarding wildlife and ecology, noted in Conditions 15 & 16 of the officer’s report. East Sussex County Council, Highways, had confirmed that car parking met the requirements and that there were no highway safety issues. He said six existing garages are to be allocated for residents to use although they were not part of the application and they had no control over the garages. The area will remain a cul-de-sac and that there was enough green space in the wider area. He said he understood the concerns by residents, and it would be unlikely that building work would be undertaken on a Saturday. At the weekend building work could be avoided altogether if members were minded to change the wording of the condition.
Ward Councillor, K Beaney, for West St. Leonards Ward, was present and spoke against the application. He said he had met with the residents and they were strongly against the proposal. He questioned why the building had not been built in the 1960’s if it was deemed suitable. The scale and design of the development is not known because it is outline application. The only green open space in the road is used by residents to socialise and children to play. The site is home to wildlife and birds etc. The proposed block of flats will be high and prominent, will be out of keeping andwill have a detrimental effect on the character of the neighbourhood. Parking is already limited and the access off the turning head will fill up with cars and create a dangerous environment. There have been flooding issues in the past. The applicant should provide a stability report.
Members discussed the garages; land instability; green space; wildlife and ecology.
Councillor Beaver proposed a motion against the officer’s recommendation, to refuse the application as set out in the resolution below. This was seconded by Councillor Scott.
RESOLVED – by (5 votes to 3 against, with 1 abstention) that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-
The proposal fails to demonstrate the site’s capacity of accommodating the level of residential development proposed without satisfactorily demonstrating that there is no risk in terms of land stability, or whether any risks are acceptable or can be mitigated to an acceptable level. This is contrary to Policy DM5 of the Development Management Plan (2015), which requires convincing and supporting evidence to be supplied that shows any actual or potential instability can be overcome through appropriate remedial, preventative or precautionary measures.
- MAP - Land adjoining 14-16 Harley Way HS-OA-17-00930, item 37. PDF 406 KB
- Land adjoining 14-16 Harley Way HS-OA-17-00930, item 37. PDF 142 KB