SPC logoCouncil Meeting Minutes

Minutes of the Parish Council Meeting on
Tuesday 16th August 2016 at 19:00
held
in Committee Room 2 of Sedlescombe Village Hall

Present: Cllr. Vine-Hall (Chairman)
Cllrs. Anson, Brister, Chapman, Fraser, Glew (Vice-Chair), Page, Parsons and Veitch
Clerk/RFO: Mrs Carol Hodgson

Also present: 12 Members of the public

C16/76 Apologies
No apologies, all Members of Parish Council were present.

C16/77 Interests in accordance with 2012 Code of Conduct

  1. To receive new written requests for dispensation.
    None
  2. To receive councillors' declarations of interest regarding matters on the agenda.
    None

C16/78 Public participation session re matters on the Agenda at the Chairman's discretion.
The Chairman invited members of the public to speak.
Members of the public were attending in relation to item C16/80 1.a - planning application for Street Farm. All 12 objected to the proposed development for the following reasons:-
The housing target for Sedlescombe can be met by the sites identified in the emerging Sedlescombe Neighbourhood Plan. The appeal on the first planning application had been dismissed with reference to the flora and fauna of the land. Residents understood that they have to have more houses in the village but why in Brede Lane which is already very busy especially around school starting and finishing times. The traffic travels very fast along Brede Lane. The site is a beautiful valley in an AONB. Concerns were raised that the site would continue to be developed and the open space will be totally lost. Once houses are developed here it will set a precedent. The land the developer is offering to the school is not feasible, it will cost £1,000's to level out for using.

C16/79 To approve the minutes of the Council Meeting on 19-Jul-16
RESOLVED: That the Chairman is authorised to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 19th July 2016

C16/80 Planning

  1. To consider response to planning applications.

    a. RR/2016/1837/P - Brede Lane - land at, Sedlescombe TN33 0PY
    Erection of 16 no. residential dwellings, together with the creation of a new access onto Brede Lane and provision for car parking, open space and landscaping, and the transfer of land to be used as school playing fields and public open space.
    Cllr. Anson exceptionally asked to take part in the discussion of the application though he generally does not participate in planning matters. Members were happy for Cllr. Anson to be involved.
    Cllr. Vine-Hall reported
    Cllr. Vine-Hall had circulated his report on the Street Farm development to Members prior to the meeting and reported on the main points for the benefit of the members of the public in attendance. Cllr. Vine-Hall invited comment from Members.

    Consideration has to be given that the majority of the village is in favour of the Neighbourhood Plan, accepting Street Farm as a 'Green Space' and anything else would go against the NHP. Rother DC had robustly defended their refusal of developing land at Street Farm on the first planning application. The Neighbourhood Plan needs to be progressed to uphold Street Farm as a 'Green Space'. The benefits of the development have to be considered and compared to other sites in the Neighbourhood Plan. The site is behind Blacklands, on a sloping site and would not be too obtrusive. Three quarters of the Street Farm site could also become publicly available and the school could also benefit. Parish Council is here to also serve the minority in favour of the development, but if the majority of the Village wants Street Farm as a 'Green Space' then democracy should prevail. Parish Council has been working on the Neighbourhood Plan now for three years. The Community is engaged and Parish Council should support the majority of wishes.

    Cllr. Vine-Hall asked for a show of hands.
    Object: 8 Support: 0 Abstained: 1
    Members agreed to submit Cllr. Vine-Hall's report to Rother DC objecting to the planning proposal.
    RESOLVED: Parish Council objects to this planning proposal and has also resolved the following actions:-
    1) The application is premature and in conflict with the Sedlescombe Neighbourhood Plan.
    2) There are outstanding issues that need to be resolved.
    3) Should the application succeed there are conditions that Parish Council would ask to be taken into consideration.
    4) Parish Council ask that they may appoint a representative to speak at the planning committee meeting.
    5) Parish Council will call in the application to the Secretary of State, should the Rother DC planning officer recommend supporting approval.
    6) Parish Council will apply for 'Rule 6 status' (Rule 6 for interested parties involved in a planning appeal) should the application be refused but subsequently go to appeal.

    Comments to be issued to Rother DC Planning on the planning application:-

    Sedlescombe Parish Council objects to this application and asks for Rother District Council to refuse it as approving the application would be premature to the emerging Sedlescombe Neighbourhood Plan (SNP) and this would be contrary to the plan-led approach. This decision would be consistent with the Secretary of States decision for the dismissed appeal for the same site (APP/U1430/A/14/2219706) . In addition the recent dismissed appeal App/U1430/W/15/3140423 acknowledges and gives limited weight to the Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan which is at a much earlier stage than the SNP.
    The SNP will have completed its regulation 14 consultation on 12 September 2016 and will be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within the advertised decision period of this application. At that point the SNP will be considered to be at an advanced stage and should carry weight (see point 12 below). The planning application should be refused on that basis. Approval of the application would prejudice the SNP and would undermine the Neighbourhood Plan process by predetermining decisions about the location of housing development that are central to an emerging plan.
    At point of writing (16/8/2016)the Parish has received 326 consultation responses of which 97% support the plan and 70% specifically support the designation of the whole of Street Farm as a green space as per policy 11 in the SNP.
    The Parish Council would also ask the District Council to refer this application to the planning committee at no earlier date than the scheduled meeting on 13th of October 2016. This would allow for an additional consultation period for the application which runs over the August holiday period and also to allow the District Councillor for Sedlescombe, who will not be available for the planning committee meeting in September 2016, to attend.

    Supporting Detail
    1. The applicant acknowledges that the earlier application for development on this site (RR/2014/147/P) was refused at appeal (APP/U1430/A/14/2219706) because Rother District Council was able to demonstrate a 5 year land supply and because the application was determined to be premature by both the appeal inspector and the Secretary of State on the basis that approving it would be contrary to the plan led approach.
    The applicant accepts in their planning statement and landscape statements that:

    ‘The appeal was dismissed by the Inspector and the Secretary of State on 17 March 2015, who considered that RDC is able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and that granting permission for 18 dwellings would undermine the Neighbourhood Plan process by predetermining decisions about the location of housing development that are central to an emerging plan.’

    2. Whilst the SNP was withdrawn in late 2015, at the time of writing the draft pre submission plan is 4 weeks into the regulation 14 consultation of the revised SNP. The statutory consultation period is 6 weeks. However Sedlescombe Parish Council has extended the consultation period by a further two weeks (ending 12 September 2016) to ensure adequate consultation during the August period when many people take annual holidays.

    3. The Parish Council has worked closely with Rother District Council over the last 12 months to identify suitable development sites for inclusion in the SNP. These sites meet and exceed the District Council’s housing target of 35 dwellings, satisfying Policy RA1 and ensuring the emerging plan is in general conformity with the Core Strategy’s strategic policies, as well as satisfying the community’s aspirations for where new housing is sited in and around the village to ultimately ensure a positive outcome at referendum.
    • The emerging SNP has established sites to deliver between 36 and 39 dwellings which meet the District Council’s strategic policies. At least 17 of these dwelling will come forward immediately on the SNP being adopted by RDC (see owners letters attached)
    • In addition the SNP supports enabling development sites for a further 28 to 32 dwellings in line with community aspirations.

    4. The applicant’s site in the emerging SNP, ‘Policy 11 Street Farm, draft pre submission plan, has been designated as a ‘Local Green Space’. This will rule out development on this much loved green space for the period of the plan (2016 to 2028) and is consistent with Paragraph 76 of the NPPF which makes it clear that: The purpose of designating a local green space is to rule out development other than in very special circumstances.
    Sedlescombe’s residents have expressed a clear, unequivocal and well-articulated case that this site is demonstrably special to the local community and should be designated as a Local Green Space, protected from development.

    5. Paragraph 77 requires the Local Green Space to be:
    a. In reasonably close proximity to the community it serves.
    Street Farm is directly adjacent to approximately 40% of the dwellings in Sedlescombe and a greater proportion of those within the development boundary. The examiner of the early version of the SNP accepted that Street Farm is in close proximity to the community.
    b. Be demonstrably special to a local community and hold particular local significance, for example, because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value, tranquillity of richness of its wildlife.
    Residents have clearly articulated that Street Farm is special to the community for its beauty, tranquillity and richness of wildlife, as evidenced by their responses to the previous regulation 14 and regulation 16 consultations, and in their letters of objection to Street Farm planning applications and appeal. Moreover, the ecological importance of the site is also detailed in the report by Dr Patrick Roper (SNP Green Space Report, Appendix B, attached). The examiner of the early version of the SNP accepted that Street Farm also accepted this condition to be met.
    c. Where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.
    The land is clearly of local character as supported by The East Sussex County Council Landscape Assessment of the Brede Valley (2010). The examiner of the previously submitted SNP also agreed with this. However he felt that the plan contained ‘no substantive evidence to demonstrate that Street Farm is not an extensive tract of land’ and this has been addressed in the current draft pre submission plan with new evidence not available at the time of the first examination.
    There is no specific guidance in the NPPF on what constitutes an extensive tract of land. Guidance must therefore be taken from ‘made’ neighbourhood plans. The SNP Committee commissioned a report of ‘Made Neighbourhood Plans as at April 2015’. The report identifies eight Local Green Space designations in previously examined made plans varying in size between 4.51 and 16.39 hectares, all larger than the Street Farm site (4.43 hectares). A full detail of this report is attached (SNP Green Space Report, Appendix A). It is also noted that the examiner of the previously submitted SNP has approved the designation of Local Green Spaces in made plans that are larger than the Street Farm site.
    Street Farm cannot be concluded to be an extensive tract of land when compared to this representative number of made plans.

    6. The designation of Street Farm in the SNP is not out of conformity with the Core Strategy’s strategic policies as Rother District Council has no Green Space policy. a. It should also be noted in terms of housing delivery that two of the allocated sites (Policy 2 Sunningdale and Policy 7 Gate Cottage) representing half of the total dwellings allocated in the Core Strategy to be built in Sedlescombe are at advanced stages of negotiations with professional developers and are expected to seek full planning permission as soon as the SNP is made. (Copies of letters of intent from the site owners are attached.) A letter of intent is also attached in relation to the positive intention of the two Church Farm sites which are expected to come forward in the early part of the plan
    b. We would ask the District Council to take into account Paragraph: 082 Reference ID: 41-082-20160211 of the NPPG which states:
    How should planning applications be decided where there is an emerging neighbourhood plan but the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites?
    Where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, decision makers may still give weight to relevant policies in the emerging neighbourhood plan, even though these policies should not be considered up-to-date.
    Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the weight that may be given to relevant policies in emerging plans in decision taking.
    Further assistance to decision makers in this these circumstances can be found in guidance on the relationship between a neighbourhood plan and a local plan. Documentation produced in support of or in response to emerging neighbourhood plans, such as basic conditions statements, consultation statements, representations made during the pre-examination publicity period and independent examiners’ reports, may also be of assistance to decision makers in their deliberations.

    RESIDENTS COMMENTS
    208 letters and comments on line have been received by Rother District Council in relation to this application. Only 7 support the development with 3 making comment. Of those received 97% object to the development specifically citing that this development would prejudice the SNP. In addition, to date, 326 regulation 14 consultation responses have been received for the pre Submission SNP. Of these 97% support the plan in general and 70% (227) specifically support all of Street Farm being designated as a Green Space. To approve this application would undermine the SNP which will be submitted to the District Council within the decision date advertised for this application. The submission of the SNP to the District Council should give the SNP sufficient weight to justify refusing the plan on grounds of prematurity consistent with the decision of the Secretary of State’s previous decision in relation to application RR/2014/147/P refused at appeal (APP/U1430/A/14/2219706)

    OTHER SIGNIFICANT ISSUES THAT THE PARISH COUNCIL ASKS THE DISTRICT COUNCIL TO ADDRESS IN RELATION TO THIS APPLICATION
    1. Land Ownership.
    The application proposes to make substantial modifications to the area known as East View Terrace Kickabout (incorrectly referred to in their application as a MUGA) to enhance the applicants development. The applicant has provided £10,000 for these modifications.
    • The land concerned is not in the ownership of the applicant and the owners of the land (the Parish Council, see deeds attached) have not been approached or consulted, nor have they agreed or given permission for any work to be undertaken on their land.
    • The applicant has proposed that an access be created from the development site through the Hazel hedge adjoining the Street Farm and East View Terrace Kickabout sites. The Parish Council owns this hedge and advises that this is the only example of a Hazel hedge in the Parish. No agreement or permission has been obtained by the applicant from the owners of the site (the Parish Council) to create an entrance through this rare hedge. The Parish Council is under an obligation through the covenants in the deeds (attached) to both maintain the hedge and keep the area fenced forever.
    • The applicant has proposed material works to this area but has not included it within the red line of their application and in doing so is seeking approval for work on land beyond its application and on land not within its control or ownership.
    • The applicant proposes to install a footpath across the Kick about area without the permission of the owners (The Parish Council)
    The Parish Council does not consider the work proposed to be appropriate as the current kickabout area is well used and fit for the existing purpose.
    The Parish Council does not give permission or agree to the proposed works or the creation of an access onto and across its land and the resulting damage to the hedgerow. An existing access does exist at another point which is subject to an existing footpath claim (see later note).
    Should the application succeed then we would ask that the District Council makes the £10,000 offered by the applicant available for the Parish Council to apply to more appropriate facilities in the Village.
    The Parish Council asks the District Council to ask the applicant for a revised plan and application to reflect this. In addition the Parish Council believes that the hedge on the southern boundary of the site (separate from the hedge adjoining the Kickabout Area) is more likely to be owned by Mr David Blowey (owner of Brede Barn Farm) and the Parish Council asks the District Council to ask the applicant to prove ownership of this hedgerow and land between the hedgerow and the footpath or provide a signed agreement with Mr Blowey to cut through the hedge to create the proposed access and across the margin strip to connect to footpath 2B. Otherwise to revise the plans accordingly if no ownership can be proven or agreement demonstrated.

    2. Affordable Housing.
    The proposal makes 6 affordable houses available out of the 16 within the development. The Parish Council notes that this equates to 37.5% of the housing versus the required 40% and the Parish Council asks the District Council to address with the applicant as to how the difference is to be made up. It should also be noted that the development proposes to deliver 10 market priced houses with a total of 28 bedrooms and 6 affordable houses with a total of only 14 bedrooms. Based on bedroom capacity the proposed development is only delivering 33% affordable bedroom spaces well below the 40% requirement. The resultant effect being that the affordable housing is being given a considerably lesser weight than the market housing. In addition it would appear that the affordable housing is not being integrated into the development as is the intention of the District Council’s policy but kept to one discreet area
    The Parish Council asks the District Council to ensure that the affordable housing bedroom numbers are at least 40% of the total bedroom capacity of the development thereby ensuring the affordable houses are given equal weight to the market priced housing. In addition the Parish Council asks the District Council to ask the applicant to clarify where the affordable housing is sited and to ensure it is well integrated in to the market priced housing and to submit plans which makes this clear.

    3. AONB
    At point 4.28 in the planning statement the applicant acknowledges that:
    Planning permission is expected to be refused for major development in the AONB other than in exceptional circumstances. Whether a proposed development should be treated as major, to which paragraph 116 of the NPPF applies, will be a matter relevant for the decision taker taking into account the proposal in question and the local context (ID 8-005-20140306).
    The Parish Council would ask the District Council to consider this a large development in the context of development in Sedlescombe. The total number of houses required in or attached to the village boundary in table 12 of policy RA1 is 35. This development would represent just under half of that number and should therefore be considered large. The emerging SNP has identified that no individual development should be greater than 12 houses above which an individual development is considered to be too large by the community.
    In addition the applicant at 1.3 and 1.4 in the Landscape Assessment acknowledges that:
    1.3 However, as set out at paragraph 10 of his letter, the Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector in relation to the effect of the proposals (18 units) on character and appearance –
    ‘The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector's conclusions on the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and, for the reasons given at IR 182-198, he agrees that the proposal would have a limited adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area and there would be limited conflict with policies relating to the protection of the countryside and character and setting of villages (IR199’
    1.4 Paragraph 199 of the Inspector's Report states that:
    ‘I conclude on my first main issue that, having regard to the AONB and the setting of the village, and subject to appropriate mitigation measures, the proposal would have a limited adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. There would therefore be limited conflict with the objectives of national policy and Core Strategy policies RA1, RA2 and EN1 relating to the protection of the countryside and the character and setting of villages.’
    The applicant chooses to interpret having a ‘limited adverse effect’ and ‘being in limited conflict with the objectives of the national policy’ as being acceptable. The Parish Council argues that the point being made by the inspector and the Secretary of State was that there would be an adverse effect and there would be a conflict with the national policies rather than either being acceptable because it is ‘limited’. The applicant proposes to take an irregular field with over 12 uneven straight and rounded sides which is characteristic of fields in this area and divide it into a housing development and two even areas thereby undermining the fundamental landscape characteristic or this important side of the River Brede valley.
    In addition it is proposed to provide an area for a school playing field (see later section). To achieve a level playing field significant cut and fill ground works will be required which will in itself significantly remodel the landscape in an entirely unsuitable way inconsistent with the landscape. It should be noted that whilst the applicant is presenting this as a benefit, Sedlescombe School already has access to the closely related village sports field which is not used at all during the school week and is of a considerably larger size with existing facilities and at no cost to the School.
    Over half the development site is clearly visible from footpath 2b at the Kickabout area. This was acknowledged by the Landscape consultant at the Public Enquiry for the previous application. This is particularly true in winter when the leaves are off the Hazel hedge adjoining the two sites.
    The applicant refers to the Rother District Council, Local Development Framework Core Strategy: Market Towns and Villages Landscape Assessment August 2009 Volume 1. This states in the section titled Environmental Advice Ability to Accommodate Change/stability of character/attributes vulnerable to change and which are irreplaceable, that this site referred to as Sedlescombe S3 (which is the applicants site Street Farm) has :-
    Moderate capacity which would only be within the development boundary. Some of the plots away from the historic village core may have more capacity. The garden settings of historic properties should be protected. Open land to north of the Brede Valley is part of the valley landscape.
    We understand that the District Council has asked for comment on this application from the High Weald Unit of the AONB (HWAONB) as this assessment clearly says development should not be beyond the existing development boundary and makes specific reference to the land to the north of the Brede Valley which is the Street Farm site. We understand that the HWAONB have made no further comments than those of the inspector at the previous application. We would however ask that the District Council asks the HW AONB to make comment on the significant differences between the ecological report supplied by Dr. Patrick Roper (see Green Space report attached) and the report produced by the applicant in relation to the ecology , and flora of the site.

    4. The applicant quotes reference at 4.31 to policy OSS3. Acceptable sites which are in conformity with the Core Strategy are being brought forward by the SNP which support refusal of the application given the advanced stage of the SNP.

    5. It should also be noted that whilst East View Terrace and Blacklands are within the development boundary they are a remote settlement from the rest of Sedlescombe. The development boundary surrounding this area of Sedlescombe is tied to the core of the village by a single imaginary line across Brede Lane and is remote from other housing. This settlement does not abut any part of the rest of the village. The proposed development seeks to expand an otherwise isolated and disconnected settlement exacerbating the isolation of this settlement rather than consolidating the village.

    6. Highways and Parking and Traffic Movement: At point 5.26 of the planning statement the applicant proposes that only 13 additional vehicles will be added to the morning movements and 10 in the evening. The Parish Council asks the District Council to add a layer of commonsense to these figures. It is well established that car travel is still the main form of commuting from rural villages. Sedlescombe has a poor bus service running once every two hours and stopping early in the evening (with only 4 services on Sundays and public holidays). There are very limited employment opportunities within walking distance.
    Logically each house will have two cars (16*2=32) and each is likely to go out to and return from work each day. This would triple the proposed figure to 32 in the morning and evening which would add to the severe traffic and parking problems around the doctors and school at the peak times.
    In addition it is well established by the Highways Authority (and we would ask the District Council to confirm this) that each house in a rural location will generate between 6 and 7 vehicle movements each day. 16 houses will generate 112 new movements in the already concentrated Brede Lane. One of the key desires of the Sedlescombe community is to reduce, not increase, traffic in Brede Lane which is why the proposed developments in the SNP at the North and South end of the village will help to disperse traffic in the village as effectively as possible. The applicants traffic survey demonstrates that 6366 cars pass the site entrance each week (3341 westbound and 3025 eastbound). Between 7am and 7pm the volume is 4795. The expected traffic volume for this development is 784 per week which will add 16% to the daytime traffic movements or 12% to the total traffic movements. This should be considered significant for a small country lane and will exacerbate the already problematic parking and traffic movement outside the concentrated area of the doctors surgery/school/shop/pub
    At 5.28 Car Parking: the applicant has proposed 39 car parking spaces of which only 5 are for visitors. That is only 5 car parking spaces to service visitors to 16 houses. This level of visitor parking is totally unacceptable relative to the size of the development.
    The Parish Council asks the District Council for the plans to be revised to provide a minimum of one visitor car parking space for each house (unallocated).
    In addition if the District Council enters into any Unilateral Undertaking or a section 106 agreement with the applicant the Parish Council asks the District Council to require the applicant to build parking bays along the left hand side of Brede Lane between Ivy Cottage and the Doctors surgery to accommodate at least 6 vehicles to reduce the impact of additional traffic on Brede lane and to improve the safety and visibility for both vehicles and pedestrians particularly school children.

    7. Footpaths The applicant states in their planning statement at 2.2 that the site has no public rights of way running through the site. However, the applicant neglects to say that they are aware and have made representation in relation to two current and undecided footpaths claimed across this site. These are still to be decided by the County Council (County Council reference Rwo/170). One of the claimed paths cuts diagonally through the site which would affect at least 3 of the proposed dwellings. If a footpath is designated then there is no automatic guarantee that it can or will be diverted. (One of these footpaths also cuts across the East View Terrace kickabout and through the only existing access through the Hazel hedge adjoining the sites.) Whilst the Parish Council has objected to this claim it recognises that should the claim for this footpath be successful then it would need to be maintained and accommodated as it runs across the East View Terrace Kickabout Area.
    The Parish Council recognises that some enquiries have been made with ESCC Rights of Way but asks the District Council to fully investigate the current situation of these claims with Footpaths at East Sussex County Council and defer any decision on the application until the claims are decided to ensure the proposed development takes either or both new designated footpaths into account and/or to ask the applicant how either of the two potentially designated footpath would be integrated into the proposed scheme should an application to divert them fail.

    8. Land offered to the school The Parish Council has no objection to the land offered to the school for a playing field and has acknowledged this in the emerging SNP. However it should be recognised that the land rises by at least 10m from the bottom of the proposed site to the bottom edge of the house known as Street Farm. To convert this into a level playing field would require a substantial cut and fill process reducing the height at the top end by 5 meters and increasing the height at the bottom end by 5 meters. It is understood that there is no financial support for this work to be done at any time in the near future. A layout demonstrating the size and cut and fill required is attached. Note the playing field will be considerably smaller than apparent due to the sloping banks required and the resultant shape to be oval. The proposed conversion would have a substantial impact on the field as it is an integral part of the landscape of the Brede River Valley when viewed from across the valley. The Parish Council would draw the District Council’s attention to the recent dismissed appeal for the remodelling of the landscape in the AONB in Sedlescombe Parish: Spilstead Airstrip appeal reference APP/U1430/W/16/3145138.
    The Parish Council asks the District Council to require the applicant to include within the application plans to convert this area into a playing field so that the District Council can fully assess both the viability and acceptability of the applicant’s proposal given its location within and the resultant impact on the AONB including access arrangements which would be across a small private drive.
    The Parish Council asks the District Council to make a provision in any Unilateral Undertaking or section 106 agreement entered into with the applicant that the applicant carries out the conversion of this area into a level playing field as a part of the development and before occupation of any dwellings.

    9. Land offered to the District Council or Parish Council Whilst on face value a generous offer, the land has already in its entirety been designated a Local Green Space in the emerging SNP at the behest of the community, with no expectation of public access beyond the footpaths already in use and those currently being determined. At the time of writing this report 208 letters/comments on line have been received by the District Council from residents and stakeholders. The developer has not acknowledged the cost of maintaining this land including regular mowing, hedge cutting, fence erection and repair, insurance and health and safety related costs. The applicant has also appears to have excluded from the red line drawings the hedge line and has excluded the aerial transponder along Brede lane which forms a 4 meter wide strip along the North edge of the field that the applicant proposes to transfer to the District or Parish Council. It should also be noted that the applicant plans to transfer as green space the long narrow drive with narrow entrance which is the private access to Street Farm (house) which is currently a right of way for that property.
    The Parish Council asks the District Council to make provision in any Unilateral Agreement or section 106 agreement they enter into with the applicant to ensure a fund is provided for a least 10 years for the applicant to pay reasonable costs of maintenance of this field. Any land transferred should include the hedgerow and aerial transponder mast on the Brede Lane Frontage and the transfer of contracts to the District Council or Parish Council that relate to that mast. In addition any Unilateral Undertaking or section 106 agreement should transfer the land to the Parish Council and contain a condition that no building or parking be allowed on the land, including the section of land designated to the School and no vehicular access be allowed across the land except for the maintenance of the land. The Parish Council asks the District Council to have the applicant make clear the access arrangements to the green space in the application as the only access that exists is across the small narrow driveway that currently serves the limited use for grazing and haying the field and access for the owners of Street Farm House. This would not be suitable for public access.
    In addition, For the applicant to provide a fund for the care and if required re instatement of proposed new boundary trees along the border between the development and the area offered to the DC/PC which falls outside the red line of the proposed development
    The Parish Council also asks the District Council to have the applicant make clear how it proposes to reconnect the electricity cabling which it shows as being taken underground and through the existing hedge and potentially over private land and to provide evidence that the applicant has the permission of the owner of the adjoining land for this work to be carried out .

    10.Street Lighting: At 8.16 of the design and access statement the applicant states that the accessible areas will be well lit. Sedlescombe has no street lighting and this is an intrinsic part of the village and the AONB. The Parish Council asks the District Council to ensure that should this application be approved that and no street lighting or external lighting in common areas be installed within the red line area of the application and that no external floodlighting be installed on any of the dwellings.
    In addition, no lighting be allowed on the area proposed for the school sportsfield.

    11.Access to Public Transport: It should be noted that the entrance to the site is 650m to the nearest bus stop with the houses at the bottom of the site being 780m to the nearest bus stop including a 175 meters section of a steep footpath. The local bus service only runs every 2 hours starting at 7.50 with the last bus at 18.07 Monday to Saturday with only 4 buses on Sundays and public holidays. The development offers very limited non vehicle access. All the allocated sites proposed within the SNP are directly adjacent to the bus route and bus stops. 12.0 Legal Costs: The Parish asks the District Council that any and all legal costs relating to the transfer and conversion of any land being offered by the applicant be required to be paid by the applicant.

    Attachments:
    1. Layout showing cut and fill of the proposed sportsfield.
    2. Letters of intent from site owners for allocated sites in the Sedlescombe Neighbourhood Plan (SNP).
    3. SNP Green Space report.
    4. Pre Submission SNP.
    5. Deeds of ownership of East View Terrace Kickabout area.


    b. RR/2016/1513/P - Mole House, Crazy Lane, Sedlescombe, TN33 0QT
    Replacement of window with french doors leading on to terrace (1st floor). Installation of railings over existing extension.(Retrospective).
    Cllr. Chapman reported.
    RESOLVED: Parish Council has no objections to this planning proposal.

  2. To receive advice of decisions on previous applications:-

    a. RR/2016/1378/P - Clockhouse Cottage, The Street, Sedlescombe TN33 0QE
    Proposed extension to dwelling and replacement roof tiles together with proposed garden building.
    APPROVED CONDITIONAL: As per decision notice 02-Aug-16
    Noted.

    b. RR/2016/1861/P - Fernlea, Churchland Lane, Sedlescombe TN33 0PF
    Single storey rear extension, hall extension and decking.
    APPROVED CONDITIONAL: As per decision notice 10-Aug-16
    Noted.

    c. RR/2016/1474/P - Cartref, The Street, Sedlescombe TN33 0QW
    Revised design for units 6 & 7 (original scheme RR/2004/3635/P)
    APPROVED CONDITIONAL: As per decision notice 10-Aug-16
    Noted.

C16/81 Finance

  1. To approve the following cheques:

    a

    Sedlescombe Village Hall

    July room hire

    55.00

    b

    Mrs Brister NHP Exhibition refreshments
    25.00

    c

    G Burley & Sons Ltd Grounds Maintenance - July 2016
    265.00

    d

    XL Displays Ltd 3 x Anti Glare Poster for AO Frame
    44.40
    d C Hodgson Salary - July 2016
    Volunteer badges
    Playground Sign
    Ink Cartridge + Pens
    12 x 2nd Class Stamps
    947.79
    12.57
    51.56
    26.50
    6.60
    1045.02

    RESOLVED: All cheques are approved for payment.

C16/82 Reports & Questions

  1. To receive any other reports and questions from Members in brief, including items for the next agenda.

    Following recent weekly inspections by Councillors at the Riverside Play Area it had been noted that the nettles had become overgrown around the MUGA. The trees at the back of Tim Marchant's Motor Sales building required cutting back and there had been a build-up of litter which needed reporting to grounds maintenance contractor. Marks on the MUGA surface would be looked at.

    Cllr. Glew had been approached by Mrs. Joanna Johnson at Sedlescombe Village Stores seeking approval from Parish Council to take a photograph of the Pumphouse to use on mugs,tablecloths and gift items etc.

 

Chairman


Date