SPC logo


MEMBERS PRESENT: Councillor Vine-Hall (Chairman), Cllrs Glew, Mitchell, Reynolds, Cllr Wright (Chairman of the Council)

Clerk/Responsible Financial Officer: Mrs P Raymond


Also in attendance: two members of the public.


P11/12.56 Apologies and reasons for absence. None received.

Disclosures of personal and prejudicial interests from Councillors on matters to be considered at the meeting in accordance with the adopted Code of Conduct 2007. Cllr Vine-Hall declared his personal and prejudicial interest in P11/12.60.4 by virtue of him being the applicant. All other parish councillors declared their personal and prejudicial interests in P11/12.60.4 by virtue of the applicant being a parish councillor.

P11/12.58 Public participation session. Sue Walton gave notice that she wished to speak on agenda item P11/12.60.5. John Beck gave notice that he wished to speak on agenda item P11/12.60.3.

Minutes. The Clerk informed the Committee that, unusually, she had added a note to Minute P11/12.54 to correct the statement made at the Planning Committee Meeting on 2 August regarding the Pestalozzi Noise Abatement Notice. The reason for this was that the draft Minutes are available on the website and this Minute as drafted could have been misleading.

RESOLVED: That the Chairman of the Committee is authorised to sign the Minutes of the Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 02/08/11.


Planning Applications


RR/2011/1594/P Bulmer Lodge, The Street, Sedlescombe TN33 0AQ. Request that the building can remain as built. It has been built to the plans, drawings and specifications of both drawing No.BL002 dated June 2008 on RR/2008/1676 and Drawing No.094-03 on RR/2011/940/P. Cllr Wright reported. RESOLVED: That the Parish Council supports a refusal for the following reason:

  • The height of the garage will affect the amenities of the neighbouring property Garner Cottage. A single garage with a shallow pitch roof would be more acceptable in this position.

Cllr Wright also reported a complaint regarding three solar panels that had just been installed in the roof of Bulmer Lodge. RESOLVED: That the Clerk should report the installation of 3 solar panels at Bulmer Lodge to Rother Enforcement as the property is within the Conservation Area and can be seen from a public footpath and the B2244.

60.2 RR/2011/1643/P Greensleeves, The Street, Sedlescombe TN33 0QG. Removal of detached garage and garden shed. Erection of two storey extension. Cllr Mitchell reported on her inspection. RESOLVED: That the Parish Council supports approval of this application. It was noted that the County Archaeologist had requested a programme of archaeological works to enable the recording of any items of historical or archaeological interest as the development is likely to disturb archaeological remains.

Ivy Cottage, Brede Lane, Sedlescombe. The Chairman allowed Mr John Beck to address the meeting. Mr Beck's comments were as follows:

  • The applicant has changed to another family member from the previous application.
  • Although the applicant states that the land is no longer available for agricultural use, this use is still mentioned in the deeds.
  • The Government wishes to see more communities involved in planning matters. The wishes of one person who lives nowhere near Sedlescombe should not be allowed to over-ride the views of between 20 and 30 objectors.
  • The site of the proposed development has been found to hold a colony of bats - a protected species.

Cllr Glew and the Clerk reported receipt of copies of letters regarding the Ivy Cottage application which local residents had sent to Rother District Council. All of these letters will, in due course, appear on the website.


RR/2011/1674/P Ivy Cottage, Rear of, Brede Lane, Sedlescombe TN33 0PR. Erection of three 3-bedroom detached houses on vacant land. Cllr Vine-Hall reported that, although this application shows a reduction of one property over the previous application which has been withdrawn, the site layout is very similar and the proposed dwellings would be very near to surrounding properties. RESOLVED: That the Parish Council supports refusal of the 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 be contrary to Policy GD1(iii) it that it does not include appropriate parking provision with only two spaces allowed/dwelling and would result in unacceptable traffic conditions in Brede Lane. This area is close to a busy school, several housing estates including a development of 5 new properties and the Doctors' Surgery and driving and parking are already difficult, particularly at certain times of day.
  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.
  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 substantially increase by removal of mature trees and covering the garden with concrete and buildings. 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.

A report had been received that the property adjoining Ivy Cottage ie Springfield Cottage is using part/plans to use part of its new double garage as a treatment room. It was agreed that this situation should be monitored especially regarding exacerbation of the existing parking problems.

60.4 RR/2011/1716/P Hurst House, Hurst Lane, Sedlescombe. Installation of photovoltaic array on existing sand school. Cllr Vinehall declared his personal/prejudicial interest as applicant and all other parish councillors declared their personal/prejudicial interests as the applicant is a parish councillor. No comment will be made on this application.

The Chairman allowed Sue Walton, Chief Executive of the Pestalozzi International Village, to address the meeting. Ms Walton sought the Committee's support for this application as the property is in desperate need of repair. Ms Walton also expressed her concerns that a parish councillor had knocked on the door and asked for access to the rear of the property.


The Clerk agreed to provide ID badges for new councillors.


RR/2011/1736/P West Lodge, Chapel Hill, Sedlescombe. Proposed external insulation and recladding of external walls, renewal of fascias, soffits and bargeboards to roof, renewal of windows, extension of front bay roof. Cllr Glew reported on her inspection. RESOLVED: That the Parish Council supports approval of this application.


Appeals. None.



RR/2011/1202/P Spilstead Oast, Stream Lane Paddock to outdoor riding arena for private use Conditional Approval 04/08/11
RR/2011/1372/P 22 Park Shaw, Sedlescombe TN33 0PP Garage conversion and roof alterations Conditional Approval 10/08/11
RR/2011/1374/P 20 Park Shaw, Sedlescombe TN33 0PP Proposed roof alterations to garage

Conditional Approval


RR/2011/859/P Ivy Cottage, land rear of, Brede Lane, Sedlescombe Pair 2-bedroom semi-detached and 2 x 3-bedroom detached cottages Withdrawn on 17/08/11
RR/2011/1376/P Lyndale, Churchland Lane, Sedlescombe TN33 0PF Porch and rooflight Conditional Approval 17/08/11
RR/2011/1225/L Sackville Cottage, The Street, Sedlescombe. NB The planning application RR/2011/1224/P is permitted development Window and door at rear of property Conditional Approval 22/08/11
RR/2011/1056/P 1 and 2 Tilly House, The Street, Sedlescombe TN33 0QJ Front boundary wall and fence (retrospective) Approved 16/08/11
RR/2011/1593/P 3 Riverbridge Cottages, Sedlescombe Tree surgery No objection 23/08/11





  1. LWA Bodyshop. The Committee noted the following:
    1. Enforcement Notice with effect from one week after 24/09/11 requiring the use of the building for the spraying of vehicles to cease.
    2. Stop Notice with effect from 20/08/11 requiring the use of the building for the spraying of vehicles to cease.
  2. Pestalozzi International Village. The Committee noted the following:
    1. Noise Abatement Notice with effect from 25 days after 14/07/11 to abate noise from amplified sound.
    2. 28-day Permitted Development and the proposed meeting involving the parish, Rother and Pestalozzi. The Clerk informed the Committee that, during the summer, Rother's Enforcement Officer had been in correspondence with Pestalozzi concerning the number of days when temporary events had been held on the Estate in 2011. It appeared that the 28-day permitted development allowance had been exceeded .Copies of the Clerk's list of days were provided to councillors and the public. Rother's Enforcement Officer had suggested a meeting between himself, Pestalozzi and the parish in order to try to agree the figures with Pestalozzi and to try and work out a way of ensuring the situation that has occurred this year does not happen again. The meeting will be held on Thursday 8 September at 11:30.



Budget Car Company.

  1. RR/2011/1263/P Erection of valeting bay structure, together with reinstatement of former picket fence to front boundary.
    1. Water drainage. According to Budget Car Company, all vehicle washing products used are 'bio-friendly'; there is no harmful run-off; there is an interceptor trap on site which was installed some while ago (confirmed by the Area Highway supervisory); any containers/rags, etc are minimal and are recycled.

      Subsequently, The Environment Agency commented that it has no objection to the proposal as long as the following condition regarding protecting groundwater is attached: "No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details." The reason for this condition is that the site is located on the Ashdown Formation and next to the River Brede. The Ashdown Formation is a Secondary Aquifer with reasonable permeability, such that any contaminants entering groundwater are likely to be transported to the River.

    2. Replacement of the picket fence. In his comment on the replacement of the picket fence, Mr Hall of Powdermills, commented that the fence's replacement will "merely cause further problems at the junction of our driveway and the main road".
  2. Tree Notice. The Council had received a copy of the Rother Tree Officer's Report regarding removal of a tree in the Conservation Area without giving 6 weeks' prior notice to Rother. A tree replacement notice is to be served on the Budget Car Company requiring an ash (Fraxinus excelsior) standard tree of at least 4 metres in height is to be placed in accordance with recognised good practice before 31/12/11 in a position no more than 2 metres from the felled tree. The new tree itself will need to be replaced if, within 2 years from the planting date, the tree is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies.
  3. Cars for sale parked on land where car sales are not authorised. Over the weekend, two cars which have been advertised for sale on the Friday-Ad website, have been parked on the access to the pumping station. In addition, a small shed has been built on the site where the unauthorised valeting centre had previously been. Mike Searle, Rother Enforcement Officer, has been informed. In addition, PCSO Georghiou has been informed that at least one car has been parked on the roadway without road tax and Rother's Enforcement Department has been informed about cars for sale parked on the highway. Cllr Ganly has been asked to intervene.

Electronic communication between Rother District Council Planning Division and Sedlescombe Parish Council. Following previous discussions regarding the questionnaire, it was RESOLVED: "That the Clerk is authorised to reply as follows to Rother District Council:

  1. That Sedlescombe Parish Council is willing to receive electronic weekly planning lists with hyperlinks to documents rather than hard copies of planning applications.
  2. That Sedlescombe Parish Council is willing to take part in a 6-month trial of full electronic communication."

Rother District Core Strategy.

  1. Receipt of an e-mail from Laurence Keeley of Herstmonceux regarding his Land Community Trust Scheme was noted.
  2. Proposed Submission Core Strategy. It was agreed that copies of the Proposed Submission Core Strategy would be circulated to Planning Committee members and that a further meeting would be held on Tuesday 20/09/11 when comments would be considered. It was further agreed that members would forward their comments to the Clerk so that she could circulate a report to members prior to the Committee Meeting.

    The Clerk informed the Committee that she had asked Rother Planning Strategy why the comments made by Sedlescombe PC two years ago had not been incorporated into the Draft Rural Settlements Study.

    The following was noted
    1. Closing date for representations is Friday 30/09/11 at 16:30.
    2. Representations need to fall under two main areas:
      1. Legal compliance eg How Rother prepared the Core Strategy.
      2. Soundness eg Actual content of the strategy. There are three areas to consider when looking at whether or not Rother's Proposed Submission Core Strategy is sound. To be sound the Core Strategy should be justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
    3. Representations cannot be treated in confidence.
    4. All representations must
      1. Make clear why it is considered the Strategy does/does not meet the legal compliance check and/or the three tests of soundness.
      2. Be clear and to the point.
      3. Back up points with clear evidence to justify representations.
      4. Relate to a specific area.
P11/12.67 Date of next meeting: 20/09/11.