SPC logoPlanning Committee Minutes

MEETING ON TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2014 IN COMMITTEE ROOM 2 OF SEDLESCOMBE VILLAGE HALL 18:30 TO 19:00

PRESENT:Cllr J Reynolds (Chairman)
Cllr P Anson, R Eldridge, R Chapman, J Parsons
Ex-officio members: Cllr J Vine-Hall (Chairman of the Council); Cllr P Glew (Vice-Chairman of the Council)

100 APOLOGIES. None, all present.

101 INTERESTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2012 CODE OF CONDUCT. None

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

103 MINUTES. The Chairman was authorised to sign the Minutes of the Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 11/03/14.

104 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

  1. RR/2014/367/TN Sedlescombe Village Green. Installation of new 11 metre BT pole (9m out of ground). RESOLVED: That the Parish Council, as registered owner of Sedlescombe Village Green, is totally opposed to the erection of this BT pole and is surprised that it has been so difficult to contact BT to discuss the matter. In 1993 and 2000, BT cables serving properties to the east of The Green were put underground with the approval of the Parish Council and it is suggested this should be done again. The Village Green is protected under section 29 of the Commons Act 1876 which states that only developments which are for "the better enjoyment of the land for public recreation are permissible" on a registered Village Green.  The erection of a pole, showing 9 metres out of the ground on the edge of the Village Green would not meet this requirement.  The proposed site is adjacent to listed buildings which date back to the 15th century and is situated in the heart of the Sedlescombe Conservation Area. 

105 UPDATES

  1. RR/3165/CC AND RR/2014/473/C Felon Field, Marley Lane, Battle TN33 0RE. New East Sussex County Council Highway Maintenance Depot with salt barn, 10no. vehicle garages, vehicle washdown, materials storage bunkers and office/welfare facilities. Approved by Rother.

    ESCC's report was noted. In the report it was stated that no trees are to be removed from the south and east. Proposed work to the tree line on Marley Lane is to facilitate use of the existing vehicle access to the site (members remembered that this site entrance had never been approved or used). ESCC would also like to see the tree line maintained and enhanced and the applicant will be required to strengthen the tree belt on Marley Lane. Floodlighting of the site has been designed in collaboration with an ecologist to ensure there is no harm to potential Bat or Dormouse habitat. Natural England and the County Ecologist have no objections. The Environment Agency has confirmed that the applicant's management scheme for potential saline intrusion to the adjacent watercourse is acceptable.

  2. RR/2013/2502/A Sedlescombe United Reformed Church, Chapel Hill, Sedlescombe. Advertisement consent for static illumination of existing Church notice board. Withdrawn.

  3. RR/2014/147/P Brede Lane, land at, Sedlescombe. Erection of 18no. residential dwellings with associated access, car parking and open space together with the transfer and change of use of land to be used as school playing fields.

    Cllr Vine-Hall reported that he had attended the Rother Planning Committee where the application to build 18 homes at Street Farm, Brede Lane had been refused by councillors on the advice of the Planning Officer because the site is outside the development boundary. Cllr Vine-Hall had been pleasantly surprised to hear several Rother councillors bemoaning the lack of parish councils undertaking Neighbourhood Plans and saying that Rother DC should have given parishes more encouragement to do them.

    It was agreed that, in preparation for a probable appeal, Cllr Vine-Hall should, with the help of an ex-traffic consultant he knows, make further enquiries regarding the calculation that was made using Trics software of the number of vehicles that are expected to be generated from the site.

    Cllr Vine-Hall noted that there had been no proper plans at the meeting to show the revised entrance further west from Oakhurst as required by East Sussex County Council.

    The other matter that had arisen after the comments had been submitted was the unsuitability of the land that was being offered for school playing fields because of the 6 metre drop from top to bottom which would need considerable work leaving a narrow flat strip.

  4. RR/2014/161/P By the Way, Sandrock Hill, Sedlescombe. Conversion of workshop/studio building to provide self-contained holiday let and ancillary living accommodation. Refused by Rother as the unauthorised existing building would create an independent unit of living accommodation within the countryside which would be capable of being used as a separate dwelling.

  5. RR/2014/7/P Sedlescombe Vineyard, Cripps Corner. Formation of visitors' car parking area. Approved by Rother.

  6. RR/2014/386/T D B Earth Moving, Marley Lane, Sedlescombe. Works to trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Consent granted.

106 HARD COPIES OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS. A revised process will need to be adopted by Sedlescombe Parish Council following the receipt of information from Tim Hickling, Service Manager, Strategy and Planning, Rother District Council that, as from 01/07/14, hard copies of planning applications will no longer be sent to Town and Parish Councils. The problems that need consideration by councillors beforehand are:

  1. Whether to continue the current inspection by Sedlescombe parish councillors of planning application sites?
  2. How to deal with the more minor planning applications?
  3. How to deal with major planning applications?
  4. Whether it will be necessary to purchase additional equipment?

The Clerk had asked Tim Hickling whether it would be possible to borrow the larger planning applications from Battle Help and Advice Centre and his reply was awaited. Members felt that they could cope with smaller applications by printing them themselves but that they might need help with larger ones. It was suggested that, if the Battle Help & Advice Centre idea was not feasible, maybe Rother could just print the larger applications for parishes. Although Sedlescombe has a projector, it was felt unreasonable to ask the Clerk to add a further task of downloading the plans and projecting them to her workload. For further discussion when Tim Hickling has replied.

Chairman

Date