Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5 SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 12 December 2013 Held at Cowdray Hall, Easebourne, at 10:30am Present: Andrew Shaxson (Chair) Barbara Holyome Diana Kershaw Alun Alesbury Neville Harrison (Deputy Chair) Tom Jones Doug Jones David Jenkins Jennifer Gray Charles Peck Ian Phillips

SDNPA Officers: Tim Slaney (Director of Planning), Keith Reed (Deputy Director of Planning), Pat Aird (Development Management Lead, Michael Scammell (Historic Buildings Officer), Veronica Craddock (Landscape Officer), David Cranmer (Recovered Services Manager), Richard Dollamore (Design Officer), Nat Belderson (Link Officer), Becky Moutrey (Senior Solicitor), Rebecca Haynes (Member Services Officer), Dominic Smith ( County Council Highways) & Teresa Ford (East Sussex County Council Highways).

OPENING REMARKS 233. The Committee Chair informed Committee members and members of the public that the meeting would be filmed and it should be noted the Chair of the meeting would have discretion to terminate or suspend filming if in his opinion continuing to do so would be distracting, disruptive or otherwise might prejudice proceedings at the meeting. 234. Items 9 onwards would be heard after 2pm. APOLOGIES 235. There were none. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS 236. Doug Jones declared a public service interest in items 11 & 12 as the applications were located within his parish, of which he is a parish council member. 237. Jennifer Gray declared a public service interest in items 11 & 12 as a member of East Hampshire District Council. 238. Tom Jones declared a public service interest in items 6, 7 & 15 as a member of Lewes District Council. 239. Tom Jones declared a public service interest during the debate on items 9 &10 as indicated in minute 291, as a member of Lewes District Council, as Lead Planning member, Cabinet member and advising on the North Street Quarter. 240. Neville Harrison declared a public service interest in items 6, 7, 9 & 10 as a member of the South Downs Society. 241. Andrew Shaxson declared a public service interest in items 6, 7, 8, & 13 as a member of Chichester District Council. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD ON 14 November 2013 242. The Minutes of the meeting 14 November 2013 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair. Matters Arising 243. Minute 232; the SDNPA had written to West Sussex County Council to advise on the Authority’s wildlife concerns including bats and to confirm that the Authority would submit further comments, should additional information become available. It was unlikely that the application would be determined before February 2014. UPDATES ON PREVIOUS COMMITTEE DECISIONS 244. The Director of Planning updated the Committee on the Inspectors conclusions on the Mid Sussex District Local Plan:

1 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5 - The Duty to Cooperate had not been met - There was therefore insufficient evidence that the plan had been positively prepared and so could be unsound - There was evidence of some cooperation following submission but it was late and had not been embedded as an integral element in the plan making process. The evidence demonstrated a more robust commitment to engagement and there was potential for significant progress to be made - The Plan should give detailed and rigorous consideration to the needs of nearby authorities and draw robust conclusions as to whether or not additional growth could be met in a sustainable way in the district, taking into account environmental and other constraints - The Council should withdraw the Plan, undertake a more rigorous assessment of cross- boundary issues, re-consult and re-submit the Plan as soon as possible - The CIL Draft Charging Schedule will have to be withdrawn. These issues gave a steer on the development of the SDNPA Local Plan to ensure there is robust evidence on the duty to cooperate.

URGENT ITEMS 245. There were none.

246. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 247. The Chair informed the Committee that as there were 2 applications for the same site, they would be heard together, the public speakers would speak on both applications, the Committee would debate both applications together before taking a decision on each application separately.

CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL Application No: SDNP/13/01358/FUL Proposal: Expansion of existing boarding school (class C2 use), comprising: - alterations to 'Wispers' for staff accommodation, administration and stores with demolition of external fire stair, laundry building and extension to provide new assembly hall: - conversion of garage building to staff accommodation; - demolition of luggage store, classroom and technology blocks and ancillary buildings and construction of two new school buildings; - erection of a new refectory in the walled garden, alterations to gate positions to walled garden, conversion and extension to tool sheds to provide an energy centre; construction of six new boarding house buildings; - construction of new sports pitch with a polymeric multi-use games area (MUGA) and running track; construction of a subterranean sports centre beneath MUGA; - parking for 40 cars, 2 minibuses and standing for 3 coaches; minor internal access alterations; - together with full landscaping across the site, addition of bin store, sub-station and associated infrastructure. Address: St Cuthmans School Tote Lane Stedham Midhurst West Sussex GU29 0QL

Application No: SDNP/13/01359/LIS Proposal: Expansion of existing boarding school (class C2 use) comprising:

2 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5  alterations to ‘Wispers’ for staff accommodation, administration and stores with demolition of external fire stair, laundry building and extension to provide new assembly hall:  conversion of garage building to staff accommodation;  demolition of luggage store, classroom and technology blocks and ancillary buildings and construction of two new school buildings;  erection of a new refectory in the walled garden, alterations to gate positions to walled garden, conversion and extension to tool sheds to provide an energy centre;  construction of six new boarding house buildings; construction of new sports pitch with a polymeric multi-use games area (MUGA) and running track; construction of a subterranean sports centre beneath MUGA;  parking for 40 cars, 2 minibuses and standing for 3 coaches;  minor internal access alterations; together with full landscaping across the site, addition of bin store, sub-station and associated infrastructure. Address: St Cuthmans School Tote Lane Stedham Midhurst West Sussex GU29 0QL 248. The Committee considered the reports by the Director of Planning (Reports PC90/13 & PC91/13). 249. The case officers referenced items on the December 2013 update sheet including:  Additional Information and representations received  Clarification in regard to Consultee submissions  Letter received from the applicant  Typo in paragraph 9.3 for the last word to read ‘unacceptable’  Clarification on the elements of work that required listed Building consent were: - Alterations to ‘Wispers’ for staff accommodation, administration and stores with demolition of external fire stair and extension to provide new assembly hall; conversion of garage building to staff accommodation; demolition of laundry building and greenhouse; alterations to gate positions to walled garden, conversion and extension to tool sheds to provide an energy centre and associated infrastructure. Other listed items required Planning Permission only.  The addition of a 2 year implementation condition on the listed building application 250. A verbal update was given on the letter received from the local MP Andrew Tyrie, petitions received against and in support of the application, and a letter received from the Durand Academy. The Landscape officer and a Highways officer from West Sussex County Council were in attendance to respond to questions from the Committee. 251. The case officers clarified:  The applicant had confirmed access was possible for a coach through the gated entrance  Levels of construction traffic and details on levels of excavation could be dealt with through a management plan or S106 agreement  The differences between the original proposed development and the revised plan following extensive discussions with SDNPA officers  The key planning considerations  The applicants ‘fall back’ position  Policies, and paragraph 116 of the NPPF which were key to the officer’s recommendation

3 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5 252. Mr Stephen McGairl spoke against application (FUL) on behalf of himself and the parish of Stedham with Iping; he spoke about:  He had lived in Stedham for 30 years and was enthusiastic when the area became part of the SDNP  The SDNP Purposes and Duty and the need to conserve and enhance the area  The application proposals would cause permanent damage to the SDNP  The mass and height of the buildings were inappropriate within the SDNP  The consultee responses from the South Downs Society and the National Trust  The school was in an inaccessible part of the NP and the Academy had not sought advice before purchasing the site  The application did not foster the economic wellbeing of the area as the Durand Academy stated they would bring supplies from London rather than utilise local services. 253. Anne Reynolds spoke against the application (FUL) on behalf of herself and the Parish of Woolbeing and Redford; she spoke about:  The impact of the proposal on the parish  Traffic would converge through Redford  The lack of support for the development and that the development was not sustainable  The applicants had not demonstrated that the need could not be met elsewhere  The report was inaccurate and did not justify the site selection  The Durand Academy had admitted that the school was an experiment  The capacity within local secondary schools with good Ofsted reports  The site location and the difficult access  The opposing petitions and Parish meetings held regarding the application  The lack of effective communication undertaken locally by the Durand Academy. 254. Brett Farmery spoke against the application (FUL) on behalf of the Parishes of Stedham with Iping and Cole and Woolbeing with Redford; he spoke about:  The transport aspects of the proposal and fully agreed with the initial transport report and disagreed with the fall back position set out in 28 November Highways report  The traffic management proposals were unrealistic and the staggered times highlighted this  Traffic management plans were unenforceable  lanes were not suitable and highway safety would be compromised  The poor visibility and restricted road with on the gated entrance which related to land outside the Durand Academy’s control were not accessible by Emergency vehicles  going through Milland would be contrary to traffic calming scheme  The transport impact on the area 255. Michael Reynolds spoke against application (LIS) on behalf of himself and the Parish of Woolbeing with Redford; he spoke about:  He was a former school teacher at St Cuthmans School  The Wispers building was a well known striking building and the proposal detracted from the historic design  The calculations on vehicle movements of the former use were wild guesses – taxis, minibuses were used and were barely noticeable  the inappropriate road access for large vehicles, including: - the difficult access through the gated entrance - the risky manoeuvres by coaches on Lynch Road

4 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5 - the accidents he had witnessed on Lynch Road  the threat to the existing camp site which had been registered as a community asset and was used by 1,200 people per annum 256. Dr Adrian Hearle spoke against application (LIS) on behalf of himself and the Parish of Woolbeing with Redford; he spoke about:  He lived opposite ‘Wispers’ and was a co owner of the private drive  The private drive had been utilised by horses and children since the St Cuthmans school closed  The Durand Academy had not purchased the entire site and had refused to discuss the private drive with neighbours  The proposal was not viable or sustainable and would not fulfil the desired need  His query regarding the early starts and early finishing and whether they would meet the criteria for the minimum requirements for state boarding education  The intrusive work on ‘Wispers’ and previous demolition without consent  The figures did not add up and the schools Minister promised a financial review. 257. Eddie Lintott spoke against application (LIS) on behalf of himself and the Parish of Stedham and Iping; he spoke about:  He had lived in Stedham all his live and for 47 of those years he was a member of the Parish Council  ‘Wispers’ house was formerly used by WSCC as a school of a manageable size, and the use of this building would not be possible for the large numbers in the proposal  When the students had free time they would be taken back to London and would therefore not have time to enjoy the SDNP  The proposal would put the ’dark night sky reserve status’ at risk and would not conserve or enhance the NP  The listed building restoration would be futile if it lost its setting  Walkers riders and cyclists would lose the view of ‘Wispers’ if the permission was granted  The application was not appropriate in the landscape and within the curtilage of a listed building. 258. Tim Campbell MBE. spoke in support of application (LIS) on behalf of himself; he spoke about:  He was a friend of the Durand Academy, a previous Apprentice winner, a chair of Governors at a London School and an advocate of school education  His work with assisting disadvantaged children and the benefits of good education with the right to aspire for all  The 2011 Planning for Schools document  He received his MBE for his work within the community. 259. Councillor Mark Dunn spoke in support of the applications representing himself the Chichester District Councillor for the ward of Westbourne, part in the SDNP, part out; he spoke about:  The finely balanced decision to be taken  The applicants had an exciting vision to improve inner city schools outcomes and create a possible model for the future.- part of that vision was for children to enjoy the SDNP  The proposal had earned support from the educational environment  The site had an educational use for many years  The understandable hostile local community and the narrow views of the local parishes

5 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5  The site was in a state of disrepair and ‘Wispers’ was not of great beauty and had been degraded by previous applications and uses  The SDNPA did not have their own Local Plan and the application will be determined by inherited policies of Chichester District Council, which do not give sufficient grounds to refuse the application  The opposition to the new which is now an object of pride for the local community 260. Sir Greg Martin spoke in support of application (FUL) on behalf of the Durand Academy; he spoke about:  He was the executive head of the Durand Academy  The application was the result of 28 months of working with the SDNPA and holding public meetings, working together to do what was requested. In response to these discussions the following changes were made: - The sports hall would be sunk into the ground - The number of students had been reduced and would be capped through a condition - The vehicle movements would be less than permitted use and the fall back position  The Academy would use their fall back position if the application was refused  There was a national need for this type of development to encourage more disadvantaged people to access the SDNP  The proposal would create jobs and boost the local economy  It was the right site for the proposal with fantastic grounds  The need to provide the opportunity for future generations to benefit. 261. Martin Page spoke in support of the applications on behalf of the Durand Academy; he spoke about:  The transport scheme was acceptable to the Highways Authority  The proposal would inspire behaviour change and would give hard-to-reach groups access to the NP, which is an important commitment of the SDNPA  The use of the SDNP would benefit children’s education  The lack of objection on landscape impact  The views from Tote Lane could be moderated in fewer than 15 years and the sports hall would be underground  Screening could be provided for the views to the south and the landscape height change would blend into the landscape in time  The lawful use of the site would have a greater impact on tranquillity especially with vehicle movements. The lawful use to take place at any time  The site had been owned by the Durand Academy since 2010  The application was a balance of planning policy against meeting the need and would cause no or limited landscape impact which would be mitigated  Once all of the evidence was taken into account a positive outcome would be concluded 262. The case officers circulated drawings illustrating the appearance of the proposed assembly hall, and how it would be joined to the Listed Building for Committee Members to consider. 263. The Committee commented on:  National education need and the importance of meeting this by including alternative forms of education.  It was disappointing the students would be driven back to London when they had free time in weekends to enjoy the SDNP

6 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5  Support for the principle of encouraging and extending opportunities in accessing the countryside for hard-to reach-groups. The SDNPA has a role to play in visiting and learning experiences and already runs programmes on this  The traffic impact on local villages  the difficulties of enforcing a travel management plan  The proposal included improvements to the site  The facilities, including a sports hall and swimming pool, appeared squashed within the application site  The National Park Purposes and Duty  Development is often needed to restore listed buildings  The acceptability of a sports hall next to a campsite  The site had a long history of pre existing educational uses and as a long established boarding school  The traffic impact would be less than the ‘fall back’ position  The listed building had undergone changes throughout the years and the painted finish doesn’t resemble the original Norman Shaw design.  Schools were noisy environments  Many roads within UK national parks were narrow and were used by coaches  There were up to two thousand users of the campsite  The site was a remote sensitive area  The SDNPA s 2nd purpose would be delivered by the proposal although having regard to the Sandford Principle the 1st Purpose must prevail  The energy centre could have a landscape impact if a tall chimney is required  It would not be appropriate to grant listed building permission without an appropriate acceptable development proposal  The committees concerns were - The design of the listed building addition for the assembly hall. Any extension should be sympathetic to the local vernacular and in keeping. The addition would be the first view visitors would see of the listed building, which was not acceptable for the entrance front. The proposal was not sympathetic or complementary to the listed building and did not conserve or enhance - The applicant had not taken on board the implications of National Park status in submitting the proposal - The landscape implications were major - The major loss of trees - The conflict with planning policy - No significant benefit to the local economy - The loss of existing views and tranquillity - The proposal was an urbanising influence in a tranquil setting - The effect on the dark skies - The alternative site assessment and evidence was not up to date or robust - The scoping report indicated the site was 35 acres. The current site proposals were for a school with 3 times more pupils on an area half the size of the former school - If the fall back position was utilised, the SDNPA would have no control to condition on traffic management. 264. In response to questions officers clarified that:  The agent had confirmed that there would be no more than 3 coaches on the highway in any 90 minute period with a maximum of 4 in a whole day. The 4th coach would be 1 hour later and they would not have 10 minute intervals

7 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5  There would be an additional car park during the construction period and the green area would be fenced off following construction  If listed building consent was granted the applicant would require planning permission to build the assembly hall. Granting Listed building consent would allow internal works to be completed although works needing planning permission as well would not have permission to proceed  The adverse impact on the listed building from the proposed assembly hall was a valid reason for refusal  The setting of the listed building curtilage was considered to be the whole red line area. 265. SDNP/13/01358/FUL It was proposed and seconded to vote on the officer’s recommendation. Following a vote the proposal was carried. 266. RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in paragraph 10.1 of report PC90/13

267. SDNP/13/01359/LIS It was proposed and seconded to vote to delegate to the Director of Planning, in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, refusal of the listed building consent to reflect the concerns over the assembly hall building and its relationship to the listed building. Following a vote the proposal was carried. 268. RESOLVED: That Listed Building Consent be refused for a reason relating to the concerns expressed over the extension to the listed building, being unsympathetic in form, materials and appearance and further concern over how it is affixed to the historic fabric, all resulting in an unacceptable impact upon the listed building.

269. The Chair adjourned the meeting for a comfort break at 1:20pm and Jennifer Grey left the Committee 270. The Chair re convened the meeting at 1:25pm

CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL Application No: SDNP/13/05164/NMA Proposal: Non Material Amendment to planning permission 12/01392/FUL minor amendments to elevations to new house types. Swimming pool located below approved new extension to north face of south- east wing of main sanatorium building Address: King Edward VII Hospital, Kings Drive, Easebourne, West Sussex GU29 0BL 271. The Committee considered the report by the Director of Planning (Report PC92/13). 272. The case officer referenced items on the December 2013 update sheet. 273. Richard Winsborough spoke in support of the applications as the Head of Planning at City & Country Group; he spoke about:  The site was progressing well and much of the scaffolding would soon be removed  The chimney on the lodge had been repaired  Off plan sales were due to start in August 2014  Carla Homes wanted a more classical design The SDNPA design Review Panel preferred the proposed design to the one currently permitted  The community liaison group were also happy with the proposal. 274. In response to questions officers clarified that:  The application had been brought before the Committee as it related to a previous decision on a major scheme  The colour of the window frames was confirmed as white.

8 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5 275. SDNP/13/05164/NMA: It was proposed and seconded to vote on the officer’s recommendation. Following a vote the proposal was carried. 276. RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted for the reasons set out in paragraph 10.1 of report PC92/13 277. The Chair adjourned the meeting for Lunch at 1:35pm. Ian Phillips left the Committee. 278. The meeting re convened at 2:10pm. 279. The Chair informed the Committee that as there were 2 applications for the same site, they would be considered together, the public speakers would speak on both applications, the Committee would debate both applications before taking the decision on each application separately.

LEWES DISTRICT COUNCIL Application No: SDNP/13/02497/FUL Proposal: Demolition of existing courthouse buildings and redevelopment of site for the erection of a mixed-use development comprising flexible retail and leisure uses (use class A1, A2, A3, A4, D1 or D2) at ground floor and a 62-bed hotel on first and second floors (use class C 1) Address: The Courthouse, Friars Walk Lewes BN7 2PG

Application No: SDNP/13/02499/CON Proposal: Demolition of existing courthouse buildings Address: The Courthouse, Friars Walk Lewes BN7 2PG 280. The Committee considered the reports by the Director of Planning (Report PC93/13 & PC94/13). 281. The case officer referenced items on the December 2013 update sheet including:  Further representations  Additional comments from consultees  Additional further information  Additional wording in the recommendation regarding the S106 and payments for enhancements to the public realm within close proximity to the application site  Amended condition 8 282. Vic Ient spoke against application (FUL) on behalf of Save Lewes Architecture; he spoke about:  There were many proposals for major development within Lewes town centre  The need for a hotel should not mean that it doesn’t have to be well designed  The existing courthouse boundary wall blends well into the surrounding area  The 1st Purposes and Duty to conserve and enhance, and that the proposal did not meet it  On behalf of the objectors the Committee was urged to delay a decision to find a better solution or refuse permission 283. Councillor John Stockdale spoke against application (FUL) as the Ward Members on behalf of constituents; he spoke about:  He was one of the 2 District Councillors for the Lewes bridge ward and also lived in the ward  He was aware of the views of the residents and their objections on design grounds  The Lewes vernacular was pitched roofs  There are objections on the orientation of the building, and the narrow passage between Fitzroy House and the building  Tesco and Waitrose were delaying extensions in the town

9 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5  There was no guarantee that the shops would be let and occupied  The proposed building was not of a good enough standard for the SDNP 284. Antony Dicks spoke against application (FUL) on behalf of Lewes Conservation area Advisory Group; he spoke about:  The group’s membership of specialists in their respected fields, such as planners and surveyors  The role of the advisory group was to look at all planning applications especially within the conservation areas of Lewes  The decision of the group was that the proposal would have a negative impact in the conservation area of Lewes  The group were appreciative of the need for hotel accommodation within Lewes although the proposal design was uninspiring. The existing structure should be utilised or a new proposal submitted that would conserve and enhance the conservation area. 285. John Anderson spoke against application (CON) on behalf of Save Lewes Architecture; he spoke about:  The existing building should not be demolished and replaced  The proposal was unsightly and a budget hotel was unnecessary in the area  The proposal was not an appropriate solution and the developer had not evidenced an alternative use for conversion  Conversions have been made of similar types of buildings, such as prisons  The current building complements the adjacent Fitzroy House  Fitzroy House would be dominated by the overbearing proposed hotel  The draft Conservation Area Appraisal highlights the need to preserve and protect Lewes  The demolition was unnecessary and the architecture of the building should be protected. 286. Eleanor Austin spoke against application (CON) on behalf of her parents Mr & Mrs James Franks, owners and occupiers of Fitzroy House; she spoke about:  Her parents live in Fitzroy House which had been restored by her father’s family  She was opposed to the demolition as the current building as of high quality and design. The building should be utilised and reused. It was wrong to destroy something of quality  The demolition would be intimidating to the local residents and no documentation had been submitted as to how it would be carried out and what effect it would have on the neighbouring buildings  The roof line and materials of the current building are in keeping to the area. It is set back with green space which allowed sunlight and daylight in to the Fitzroy House snug room which was used as a living space by her parents. 287. Robert Cheesman spoke against application (CON) on behalf of the South Downs Society and the Friends of Lewes; he spoke about:  He represented over 500 people through both societies who object to the demolition unless the building that replaced it was of a high quality and standard. They had no objection to hotel and retail space  The SDNPA design standards should be improved and the societies were keen for this to happen, noting that only minor changes had been implemented following discussions with developer  A pitch roof would be more appropriate in the Lewes setting and the elevations should be similar, especially in regard to the gap between the proposed building and Fitzroy House  A disused derelict building was not wanted in the centre of Lewes and should only be replaced with one of high quality design

10 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5 288. Paul Newman spoke in support of the applications as the architect speaking on behalf of Quora (Lewes) Ltd: he spoke about:  The existing building had been built less than 30 years ago and designed to be bomb proof. It was unsustainable and not suitable for conversion  The comments from English Heritage and the opportunity to ‘Stitch together’ the street scape  The local manufactured materials (tiles)  The public exhibition where there were many supporters and those that had made contributions and suggestion in regard to the design  How English Heritage and the SDNPA Design Review Panel both supported the design  Concerns regarding height had been addressed and an independent report had concluded the proposal was not too close to Fitzroy House  A new twitten had been created, public space had been increased and new jobs would be created  The proposal was modern and sustainable with a BREEAM rating of ‘Very Good’. The materials used were complimentary to adjacent buildings 289. Helen Cuthbert spoke in support of the applications as the Planning Consultant speaking on behalf of Quora (Lewes) Ltd: she spoke about:  The proposals met all NPPF policies There is a need for budget hotel accommodation in Lewes and a survey supports this  All views from consultees and local residents had been taken seriously  Views on design were subjective  The developer had worked closely with SDNPA officers on the application and design  The town centre location was sustainable and so no car park was required and the travel plan was supported by local policy  The flat roofed box comment about the design was a mis-representation and did not reflect the design; the existing building had a substantial flat roof  The hotel operator has been secured and the developer would only proceed if there was some letting arrangements for the retail space  There were no policy grounds to refuse the application  The independent survey took the living space at Fitzroy House into account. 290. Helen Cuthbert read out a statement speaking in support of the applications on behalf of Ben Ellis, the developer Quora (Lewes) Ltd: he spoke about:  He was a local Lewes resident with children at local Lewes schools  He had worked hard to create positive regeneration of the site  He had worked closely with the SDNPA on the application, which was supported by SDNPA officers and statutory consultees including the SDNPA Design Review Panel  Meetings had been held with local groups  How 50% of visitors to the National Park do not stay overnight  Lewes was the County Town of Sussex, but lacked the infrastructure to retain that status  The proposal did not seek to compete with the local Bed & Breakfast providers, but to provide a different type of accommodation  The proposal was a significant investment in the town and the creation of 60 permanent jobs  Retail floor space was in short supply in Lewes and proposal would provide a greater choice, reducing the need of having to travel to Brighton  Using the best quality materials was a testament to the long term vision, and it had pushed viability to the limits. Quora were proud of what had been achieved

11 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5  He had worked with Lewes District Council on improvements and has indicated this with a 100 square foot public realm and a S106 to agree a strategy to maintain the public realm. 291. Tom Jones declared a Public Service Interest in these items as a member of Lewes District Council, as Lead Planning member, Cabinet member and adviser on the North Street Quarter. 292. The Committee commented:  The SDNP included towns such as Lewes. Lewes was a ‘Jewel in the Crown’ to which the Authority had a responsibility, as part of the Park  The SDNPA were tasked with preserving and enhancing these areas  The existing building was an interesting example of 1980’s architecture. It has a gloomy appearance although effort was clearly taken in regard to design  On inspection the building would not be suitable for conversion although consideration should be given to the amount of evidence submitted to support this conclusion There was no objection in principle to the demolition of the existing building as long as an acceptable new build proposal was in place  The proposed uses were acceptable in principle, if the design and layout of the proposal for a new build conserved and enhanced the area  The diversity and eclectic designs of buildings in Lewes  Local opinion should be considered and taken into account and new builds should take into account the vernacular of Lewes Town  Commendation was given on the proposed development achieving a BREEAM rating of ‘Very Good’  The need to raise the standards of design across the SDNP  There could be a feature between Court Road and Friars Walk  Their concerns regarding - The quality of the design - The proposed materials - More should be done to enhance the car park at the rear of the building, to create a public square - The proposal did not add any design value to the town of Lewes - The design was out of keeping with the character of Lewes - The passageway between the development and Fitzroy House would be made into a twitten and be much narrower than the existing walkway - The proposal would have an impact on Fitzroy House - The flat roof was inappropriate - The tree closest to the existing passageway may not survive as it would require a great deal of cutting back - The street frontage would be 3 metres higher than the existing wall - The design was not of a high enough standard for the SDNP - An acceptable proposal for a new build would need to be in place before any agreement to demolish the existing building - The lack of an agreed s106 agreement 293. In response to questions officers clarified that:  There would be one hotel entrance facing the car park  Evidence had been submitted on the viability of conversion. The existing building had been built for a specific purpose and, in particular, the lack of windows would make acceptable conversion challenging  An acceptable relationship between a new build and Fitzroy house could be achieved

12 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5  Lewes has a precedent of setting 2 & 3 story buildings next to each other  In former years a viaduct overwhelmed the area  Paragraph 136 of the NPPF states that: Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred  In regard to demolition the options were: - To retain- to keep and convert - To retain the existing building until an appropriate new build proposal came forward - To allow demolition without a suitable new build scheme in place. 294. SDNP/1302497/FUL: It was proposed and seconded to vote to delegate to the Director of Planning in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair the refusal of permission on the grounds of materials, massing and expanse of flat roof resulting in a lack of local distinctiveness and local character in addition to a lack of an agreed s106 agreement. Following a vote the proposal was carried. 295. RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the reason that the materials, massing and expanse of flat roof would result in a lack of local distinctiveness and local character. In addition there was a lack of agreed s106 agreement. 296. SDNP/13/02499/CON: It was proposed and seconded to vote to delegate to the Director of Planning in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair the refusal of Conservation Area Consent on the grounds it was an important conservation area and with no planning consent in place for a replacement building it would not be acceptable to allow the existing structures demolition. Following a vote the proposal was carried. 297. RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused in the absence of planning permission for an acceptable development on the site. 298. The Chair adjured the meeting for a comfort break at 3:50pm. Alun Alesbury, Diana Kershaw and David Jenkins left the Committee. 299. The meeting re convened at 4:10pm. 300. The Chair informed the Committee that as there were 2 applications for the same site, the officers reports would be presented together, and, the Committee would debate both applications together before taking a decision on each application separately.

EAST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL Application No: SDNP/13/04332/RE3 Proposal: Variation of condition 1 to SDNP/12/01868/FUL - to extend the use of the land and the storing of containers for a further 2 years to be extended to 31st December 2015 Address: Queen Elizabeth Country Park, Information Office, Gravel Hill, Waterlooville, Hampshire. PO8 0QE Application No: SDNP/13/04664/RE3 Proposal: Storage unit and temporary lean-to Address: Queen Elizabeth Country Park, Information Office, Gravel Hill, Waterlooville, Hampshire. PO8 0QE 301. The Committee considered the reports by the Director of Planning (Report PC95/13 & PC96/13). 302. The case officer referenced items on the December 2013 update sheet including:  An additional condition 4 on application SDNP/13/04664/RE3 303. In response to questions officers clarified that:  The existing lean-to was noted when the link officer visited the site

13 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5  The new container’s colour was covered by the additional recommendations as detailed in the December update sheet 304. SDNP/13/04332/RE3: It was proposed and seconded to vote on the officer’s recommendation. Following a vote the proposal was carried. 305. RESOLVED: That permission be granted for the reason and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of report PC95/13 306. SDNP/13/04664/RE3: It was proposed and seconded to vote on the officer’s recommendation including the additional condition as detailed on the December update sheet. Following a vote the proposal was carried. 307. RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted for the reason and subject to the conditions set out in the December update sheet and paragraph 10.1 of report PC96/13 CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL Application No: SDNP/13/04465/LIS Proposal: To make good the removal of the war memorial from Midhurst , North Street, Midhurst Address: The Old School Room, , North Street, Midhurst, GU29 9DT 308. The Committee considered the report by the Director of Planning (Report PC97/13). 309. The case officer highlighted:  It had come to officers attention that the works that are the subject of the application had been undertaken  The Committee should therefore consider the application for the retention of the works that have been carried out  The works had been undertaken acceptably and in accordance with the submitted proposal 310. In response to questions officers clarified that:  The approach to plastering the wall was in keeping with the remainder of the Hall 311. SDNP/13/04465/LIS: It was proposed and seconded to vote on the officer’s recommendation. Following a vote the proposal was carried. 312. RESOLVED: That listed building consent be granted for the reason and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of report PC97/13 APPEALS Application No: SDNP/12/03018/FUL Proposal: Eight affordable dwellings Address: Land East Of The Priors Way Hill Farm Road Monkwood Alresford Hampshire 313. The Committee considered the report by the Director of Planning (Report PC98/13). 314. It was highlighted:  The SDNPA routinely use consultants in regard to Planning appeals. Of the last 3 appeals the SDNPA have won 2 and lost 1.  The overall success rate of appeals within the National Park was around 67%, and of the SDNPA decided applications the success rate was around 73% 315. RESOLVED: The Committee noted report PC98/13

STRATEGY AND POLICY Lewes District Local Plan Part I– Joint Core Strategy Progress 316. The Committee considered the report by the Director of Planning (Report PC99/13).

14 Unconfirmed minutes –to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee Agenda Item 5 317. The lead officer highlighted:  It was suggested that Lewes should look at housing sites outside the SDNP. The inspector recognised the primary landscape within the SDNP and constraints that this leads to in terms of housing  The next steps were identified: - Further work by end of December / January - Report back on amendments to Core Strategy- February 2014 - Consultation March – April 2014 - Analyse responses April – May 2014 - Submit for Examination May- June 2014 - Hearing September 2014 - Inspector’s report November 2014 - Adoption December 2014 - January 2015  The SDNPA would take the same approach as it did for the East Hampshire joint Core Strategy. 318. The Committee commented:  Lewes District Council were working with the SDNPA to address issues including the difference between the housing need and housing target  Lewes District Council were conscious of the Duty to Cooperate  Lewes were looking at new SHLAA sites. It was noted that 55% of Lewes District is within the SDNP. 319. In response to questions officers clarified that:  There was an opportunity to work with Mid Sussex District Council to see if some of the housing needs could be accommodated by Mid Sussex  The SDNPA would be vulnerable without a Local Plan even with National Park Status  Developers will argue that the considered housing need for Lewes District should be higher  East Sussex Highways have stated that the answer to highways issues was improved public transport and a change of behaviour by the local community to use public services to ease congestion. There was a need to work with all partner authorities to identify issues such as landscape barriers  The ability to meet the housing need is complicated by the landscape and environmental factors imposed by so much of the area being a National Park. 320. It was proposed and seconded to vote on the officer’s recommendation. Following a vote the proposal was carried. 321. RESOLVED: The Committee: 1) Noted the progress that had been made on the Core Strategy since the Proposed Submission document was published in January 2013. 2) Agreed that the Authority continues to work in partnership with Lewes District Council on the Joint Core Strategy, subject to agreement on financial contributions for 2014-15. 3) Agreed to the programme of further work for the Joint Core Strategy (as identified in sections 4 and 5 of report PC99/13). 4) Agreed that the objectively assessed housing need figure for the plan period of the Core Strategy (2010 – 2030) is 9,200-10,400 net additional dwellings (equivalent of 460-520 dwellings per annum).

CHAIR The meeting closed at 5.01pm

15