SPC logoMinutes of Planning Committee

MEETING ON TUESDAY 26 MARCH 2013, COMMITTEE ROOM 2 OF THE VILLAGE HALL, 19:00 TO 19:35

PRESENT
Chairman - Cllr John Reynolds
Members: Councillors Chapman, Mitchell, Parsons
Ex-officio members: Cllr J Vine-Hall (Chairman of the Council), Cllr P Glew (Vice-Chairman of the Council)
Clerk/Responsible Financial Officer - Pauline J Raymond

103 APOLOGIES. None, all present.

104 INTERESTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2012 CODE OF CONDUCT. None declared.

105 WRITTEN REQUESTS FOR DISPENSATION. None received.

106 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SESSION RE MATTERS ON THE AGENDA AT THE CHAIRMAN'S DISCRETION. No public present.

107 MINUTES. RESOLVED: That the Chairman of the Committee is authorised to sign the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 12/02/13.

108 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

  1. RR/2013/365/P Ivy Cottage - rear of, Brede Lane, Sedlescombe. Construction of one four bedroom detached house on vacant land. Councillor Glew reported on her inspection which was limited because the agent was unwilling to meet her on site. RESOLVED: That The Parish Council objects to this application for the following reasons:
    • 1. The development would not be in keeping with and would unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining properties contrary to Policy GD1(ii).
    • 2. The development would increase the amount of traffic onto the already busy area near the School and Doctors' Surgery.
    • 3. The development would be contrary to Policy GD1(iv) and (vi) as it would detract from the character and appearance of the locality which is currently a mature overgrown garden area. The views of this tree-filled garden are highly valued by those living in surrounding properties. The removal of hedging is not supported.
    • The trees, although expected to be protected during building, are likely to suffer.
    • 4. The development would be contrary to Policy HG2(v) in that it would be intrusive in the landscape.
      5. The development would be contrary to Policy GD1(v) as it would not be compatible with the conservation of the natural beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
    • 6. The development would be contrary to Policy GD1(vii) as the garden is currently a wildlife refuge and corridor. The proposed development would destroy the existing habitats of ecological value.
    • 7. The development would be contrary to Policy GD1(xv) in that the flooding risk to this and other areas of the Village would be likely to increase. The ground is already boggy with springs and there is concern about increasing the flow of a small water course running between this property and 2 Park Shaw.

  2. RR/2013/445/P Ivy Cottage, Brede Lane, Sedlescombe. Conversion of existing courtyard and storage buildings to provide extra ground and first floor accommodation comprising 1 bedroom and 1 reception room. Cllr Glew reported on her inspection which was limited to the garden as the agent was unwilling to meet her on site. It is believed, although this could not be verified by inspection, that the plan provided with the application does not accurately show recent development at the rear of the neighbouring property, Springfield Cottage. It certainly does not show the alterations to the garage at Springfield Cottage.

  3. RR/2013/471/P Cheyne Down Cottage, Hurst Lane, Sedlescombe. Extension to residential curtilage and erection of decking (retrospective). RESOLVED: That the Parish Council supports a refusal of this application. The decking, being made of scaffold poles and boards, is inappropriate in terms of scale and materials and can be viewed from the public footpath. The change of use from agricultural land to garden land is not supported.

109 SPILSTEAD FARM AIRSTRIP

  1. Update on comments made on RR/2012/2398/P. Remodel land to improve visibility on airstrip. Members were reminded that they can see correspondence from objectors and between the applicant's agent and the Planning Department on the Rother Planning website. Objectors warn of a possible environmental disaster if contaminated material is included.

    Members were appalled to hear that the amount of soil proposed to be brought on to the site is 40,000 cubic metres, that 20-ton lorries will be used to transport the material to the site at a rate of 30 lorries per day between the hours of 0800 and 1700, Mondays to Fridays, over a period of 6 months, that the remodelling works will take 6 months to complete, weather permitting, and that the material will be sourced within a 15 mile radius comprising clean inert soil from construction sites in accordance with Environment Agency requirements (and approval) for waste soil for recovery.
  2. Logbook inspections. Still to be arranged with Cllrs Reynolds and Vine-Hall.

110 APPEALS. None.

111 RESULTS. None.

112 ENFORCEMENT LIST

  1. ENF/SED/2010/61 Cartref, The Street, Sedlescombe. Untidy site. Pass to Legal Services.
  2. ENF/SED/2010/713 Bridge Garage, rear of, The Street, Sedlescombe. Erection of paint spraying booth. Pass to Legal Services.
  3. ENF/SED/2011/449 Whydown House, Whydown Hill, Sedlescombe. Residential Chalet. No further action - planning permission granted.
  4. ENF/SED/2013/107 The Ashram, Coombe Wood, Sandrock Hill, Sedlescombe. Residential caravan - new 06/03/13.
  5. ENF/SED/2011/349 Pestalozzi Internal Village, Sedlescombe. Events taking place. No further action, no breach of planning control.
  6. ENF/SED/2011/447 Budget Car Company, The Street, Sedlescombe. Floodlights. No further action, no breach of planning control.

113 REVOCATION OF REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR THE SOUTH EAST (PARTIAL) laid before Parliament on 28/02/13. Policy NRM6: Thames Basin and Heaths Special Protection Area is being retained. Representations invited by the Rother Core Strategy Inspector on matters in the Core Strategy that will be affected by the revocation. Noted.

114 BREDE LANE, STREET FARM SITE, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. The Clerk will acknowledge the e-mail to the Parish Council from Geoff Armstrong, Director of armstrong rigg planning, which states that the development as proposed last year will not proceed.

Members were disappointed that the details of the survey which took place at the public exhibition in September 2012 had not been provided to the Parish Council as promised and subsequently requested by the Clerk. The e-mail states: "In our survey at the public exhibition, respondents were evenly split between those recognising the benefits to the school and opposition to the development proposed."

Chairman

Date