SPC logo
PLANNING MINUTES

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OF SEDLESCOMBE PARISH COUNCIL HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM 2 OF SEDLESCOMBE VILLAGE HALL ON TUESDAY 19 JANUARY 2010, 1800-1830, SEDLESCOMBE VILLAGE HALL COMMITTEE ROOM 2

PRESENT: Cllr Martin (Chairman), Councillor Mitchell
Cllr Wright (Chairman of the Council)

Clerk/Responsible Financial Officer: Mrs P Raymond

Line
P09/10.104 Apology and reasons for absence. Cllr Rand (working).
P09/10.105

Disclosure by Members of personal interests in matters on the agenda, the nature of any interest and whether the member regarded the interest as prejudicial under the terms of the Code of Conduct. Cllr Martin declared his personal/prejudicial interest in P09/10.112.2 by virtue of his daughter being the Marketing Manager of Pestalozzi International Village Trust.

P09/10.106 Prejudiced members' participation. None.
P09/10.107 Public participation session. No public present.
P09/10.108 Minutes. RESOLVED: That the Chairman of the Committee is authorised to sign the Minutes of the Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 05/01/10.
P09/10.109 Planning Applications
109.1

RR/2009/3066/P Park View, site of, The Street, Sedlescombe TN33 0QB. Construction of four detached houses and 4-bay cart lodge garage with bin & cycle store. Cllr Wright reported on her inspection. RESOLVED: That the Parish Council supports refusal for the following reasons:

  1. Contrary to Policy DS1.1 as the proposal does not make the best use of previously-developed land.
  2. Contrary to Policy GD1.2 and TR3.1 and 13 as the proposal would unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining properties because insufficient space has been allowed on the site for visitors' vehicles and the turning arrangements are inadequate. Despite what the Inspector said in the past, the entrance to the site is too narrow to take the number of extra vehicles that would be accessing the site bring them into conflict with existing users.
  3. Contrary to Policy GD1.4 as the proposed houses are too tall, too big and too dark in colour and would detract from the character and appearance of the locality.
  4. Contrary to Policy GD1.8 because the large buildings would be very noticeable on the approach to Sedlescombe Village and would prejudice the character, appearance and setting of the listed buildings and the Conservation Area.
  5. Contrary to Policy HG4.1 as the proposed buildings would not relate well to the existing street pattern.
  6. Contrary to Policy TR2 by proposing an insignificant contribution towards bus services. The previous Section 106 Agreement proposing a contribution of up to £1,000 including VAT towards bus stop improvements was totally inadequate because a new bus shelter would cost about £5,000. A new Agreement should be made with the Parish Council as owner of the bus shelter and land to cover the cost of improving the waiting facilities.
  7. If the development were to be approved, the hedge on the southern boundary of the site must be retained.
  8. NB The comments marked "Highways Comments" on the webpage and dated 12/01/10 are in fact further Archaeological comments.
109.2

RR/2009/3070/P Manorside, The Street, Sedlescombe TN33 0QG. Proposed timber framed conservatory.

Cllr Mitchell reported on her inspection. RESOLVED: That the Parish Council supports the proposal which is in accordance with Policy HG8 as the proposed development would be in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and its surroundings in terms of size, design and materials as well as protecting the amenities of adjoining properties.
109.3

RR/2009/3199/P Glendale, Churchland Lane, Sedlescombe. Open Bay timber garage. Cllr Martin reported on his inspection. RESOLVED: That the Parish Council supports the proposal which is in accordance with Policy HG8 as the proposed development would be in keeping with the existing dwelling and surroundings in terms of size, design and materials as well as protecting the amenities of adjoining properties. The garage is not expected to be intrusive in the landscape.

P09/10.110 Appeals. None.
P09/10.111

Results. None.

P09/10.112 Information for Parish Councillors
112.1

Use of access from Pumphouse Yard into Gammons Way. The Clerk reported that, after the agenda had been published, the Headteacher of the School had asked her to inform the Parish Council about an incident on 15/01/10 with a large white van and huge trailer coming out of the double gates at 0850 just as the children were walking to the School. The vehicle went up on the pathway opposite which was a very dangerous hazard and Mrs Ham had had to run out to stop the children walking down the pathway as they could have been hit. This was the first time Mrs Ham had seen the gates used since permission was granted for them as part of development of Pumphouse Yard (RR/2004/945/P). In order to answer Mrs Ham's question about whether the development had started within the planning approval time limit, the Clerk had contacted Rother's Enforcement Officer and his reply was awaited. Parish councillors thought that there had been a restriction imposed on the hours of use but this appeared to be that no vehicles could use the entrance prior to 0800 or after 1800 during the week and before 0800 and after 1300 on Saturdays. At the time that the planning application was submitted, East Sussex Highways had not objected to the entrance despite it being so close to the School gate.

The Clerk would ask for a meeting with East Sussex County Council to discuss the safety aspects of the entrance.

112.2

Reply from Rother Planning regarding proposed highways improvement work as agreed in Section 106 Agreement Pestalozzi/ESCC.

Cllr Martin declared his personal/prejudicial interest by virtue of his daughter being Marketing Manager of Pestalozzi International Village Trust. He left the meeting and Cllr Wright took the chair.

 

The Clerk reported that in addition to her report to the full Council on 12 January, replies had now been received from Rother's Planning Officer, Mark Cathcart, as follows:

 

1. ESCC has confirmed that the 106 Agreement that was signed by ESCC, Pestalozzi and Rother regarding the proposed highway improvements at the junction of Chapel Hill, Pestalozzi and the B2244 means that the highway improvements need only be in place prior to the occupation of the conference facilities. The Parish Council is aware that the conference centre is not now expected to go ahead. The information about the Section 106 Agreement is at variance with what was said by Paul Evans (Chief Executive of Pestalozzi) at the public meeting on 13/11/09 in Sedlescombe Village Hall.

 

2.The need for planning permission for use of the land as a country park will depend on whether a material change of use of the land at Pestalozzi is involved. The existing authorised use of the land will have to be established and, according to Mr Cathcart, this is quite complex as the use has evolved over time. The recognised procedure under planning for Pestalozzi to establish its authorised use would be for them to submit an application for a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development to Rother DC.

 

3. The existing authorised extent of the curtilage of Pestalozzi will have to be established - as opposed to the outlying agricultural land and woodland.

 

4. Mr Cathcart will contact Pestalozzi inviting an approach to the local planning authority with full details of its proposals with a view to establishing whether there is a need for planning permission and to make sure that PIVT is aware of any such requirement.

 

5. On the basis of the information provided by the organiser of the Black Horse Festival to Rother regarding the intention to hold the annual festival at Pestalozzi, Rother Planning's initial view is that this falls outside the terms of the 28-day permitted development allowance and planning permission would be needed. Rother Planning is advising the organiser of this.

  Chairman.......................................Date...........................................................