ARLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL
A
QUALITY COUNCIL
(QC-12-06-00359)
Tel:
01323 811870
www.arlington-parish-council.org.uk
Minutes of a meeting of Arlington Parish Council
held in Upper Dicker Village Hall at 7.30 pm on Thursday 9th July
2009. (Paragraphs 09.70 – 09.82)
PRESENT: Councillors Mike Garner
(Chairman), Doreen Goodchild, Carolyn
McCutchan and Mark Yeoman.
In attendance: Katrina Larkin (Clerk); County
Councillor Nick Bennett (items 9.70 – 09.75); District Councillor David White;
and eight members of the public (six present for items 09.70 – 09.75, and two
for items 09.70 – 09.82).
09.70 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Cllr Paula Ertl, Cllr
Helen Proctor.
09.71 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST. None.
09.72 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING. The
Minutes of the meeting held on 11th June 2009 were confirmed and
signed.
09.73 MATTERS OUTSTANDING. Item 09.60 Casual
Vacancy. The Chairman announced that the Co-option of a
councillor to fill the casual vacancy would take place at a special meeting to
be arranged under item 09.82.
Item 09.65 Allotments –
the beehives had been removed from plot 14; and by mutual agreement the
tenancies of plots 12 and 14 would not be renewed at the end of the current
growing season. St Bede’s School had
expressed a willingness to talk with the Dicker Cricket Club to try to find a
joint solution to the problem of cricket balls causing damage on the
allotments.
09.74 PUBLIC ADJOURNMENT. District
Cllr White spoke about the imminent consultation on the LDF Core Strategy.
County
Cllr Bennett was welcomed to his first meeting of APC. He outlined his role on
ESCC as Vice Chair of the Audit and Best Value Scrutiny Committee, and member
of the Regulatory Committee. He briefly outlined the relationship of ESCC to
the LDF process, especially as a key provider of services, and confirmed that
public transport was a priority for ESCC, albeit that this was a time of
financial constraint. Because of this, ESCC would wish the LDF process to
become more site specific as soon as possible.
Mr
R Collins on behalf of the Robin Post Lane Residents’ Association reported that
there appeared to be a breach of planning conditions at Bushywood, which
was under investigation by WDC. A further concern was the recording of
complaints regarding noise at the Knockhatch festival; anyone who had
contacted WDC Enforcement was encouraged to check that their complaint had been
recorded for future reference. Finally, regarding the proposed Biomass
Energy Plant at Polegate, the concern for Arlington would be increased
traffic. The technology looked good, but if the plant were to be supplied by
something like twenty-eight 25 ton rubbish trucks per day, that could be very
detrimental to the parish, depending on the routes taken. The Parish Council
should take particular note of plans for Polegate and Berwick, because of
current cut-throughs for traffic.
Mr
Derek Newton and Mr David Ashe answered questions from councillors and from
members of the public regarding the Stud House planning application (Item 09.75
below).
Mr
John Parsons spoke against the Stud House application, outlining the arguments
he had made in a personal objection to WDC.
The
Chairman permitted a general discussion of this topic prior to its consideration
by the Parish Council.
09.75 PLANNING
(a) New applications:
WD/2009/1332/MAJ. St
Bede’s School, Upper Dicker, Hailsham. New Stud Boarding Houses
and Car Parking. APC’s response to the Planning Authority on this application
is attached to these Minutes as Annex
A.
WD/2009/1278/F. Field
house, Coldharbour Road, Upper Dicker, Hailsham BN27 3PY. General
refurbishment to main house and single storey side extension to south east. In
discussion some councillors had reservations about the proposed use of sweet chestnut
cladding, but overall it was felt that the refurbishment would improve the
property. It was resolved that the application should be APPROVED.
(b) Approval by WDC:
WD/2009/0926/FT.Great
Barn, Michelham Priory, Upper Dicker, nr. Hailsham BN27 3QS. Renewal of temporary
planning permission for a limited number of private and/or corporatre cultural
dinners for a further two years. APC took note.
(c) Tree Preservation Orders. It
was resolved that an application should be made to WDC to impose Tree
Preservation Orders on a line of twelve mature oaks in the paddock to the east
of Upper Dicker Village Store.
09.76 FINANCE
A bank reconciliation for the period ended 30 June
2009 was approved. The following accounts were approved for
payment:
|
09.07.09 |
101155 |
R P Taylor Ltd |
Lawn mowing at Upper
Dicker |
£80.00 |
|
09.07.09 |
101156 |
Wealden District
Council |
Dog bin emptying |
£65.03 |
|
09.07.09 |
101157 |
Mrs K Larkin |
Salary |
£247.83 |
|
09.07.09 |
101158 |
Mrs K Larkin |
Expenses |
£ 72.70 |
It was agreed that a monthly Standing Order
should be set up to pay the Clerk’s salary on the 15th of each
month, starting on 15th August 2009. A risk assessment for the
Clerk’s office was approved.
09.77 REPORTS
Gypsies and Travellers – consultation on draft site
criteria. Cllr Goodchild reported (see also Item 09.78
below).
Planning Panel. The meeting
scheduled for 30 June 2009 had been cancelled.
LDF briefing. Cllr Goodchiuld
reported. The consultation papers would be considered at the next APC meeting.
WDALC. Cllr Garner reported on
the main topics – street scene enforcement (i.e. fly tipping); and the
elections.
09.78 CONSULTATION
Partial Review of the Regional Spatial Strategy for
the South East: Provision for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople.
It was noted that the additional sites required by 2016 would be like rural
housing exception sites, and that WDC had some funding available to buy sites
if that were an issue. Sites would need to be near services, near settlements
and within normal planning confines. Residents would be permanent and pay
rates. It was noted that of the four options for making extra provision
discussed by the Regional Assembly, Option D had been recommended. This allowed
pitches to remain focussed on the local areas where they already were, but with
25% regional redistribution. APC agreed to support Option D.
09.79 ITEMS OF INFORMATION
Focus on East Sussex 2009: it
was noted that the annual monitoring report was now available, at www.eastsussexinfigures.org.uk.
Annual Housing Summit 2009.
Further details were awaited, but Cllr Goodchild would probably attend.
District/Parish Conference 2009. To
be held on Wednesday 4th November, 9.30 m to 4.00 pm in Uckfield
Civic Centre. Further details awaited.
Kerbside recycling. Coming
to Arlington in late spring or early autumn 2010.
Berwick petition. A
petition to WDC had been drawn up by Berwick PC opposing excessive development
of the Downland approaches and the Cuckmere Valley.
09.80 CO-OPTION OF COUNCILLOR – DEFERRED.
09.81 WICK STREET
The Chairman reported on a meeting held earlier in
the day at Wick Street, attended by residents and representatives of ESCC, to
tackle the traffic problems previously reported. Camera monitoring would take
place in September 2009. ESCC would also be prepared to put up hamlet signs at
either end of Wick Street if the parish would fund them, at a cost of £500 for
two signs. It was agreed that a motion
to that effect should be added to the agenda as urgent business (Standing Order
15). It was resolved that APC should finance the provision of these
signs. Cllr Goodchild would inform the residents and the Clerk would inform ESCC.
09.82 DATE OF NEXT MEETING
A special Planning and Co-option meeting should be
held on Thursday 30th July at 7.00 pm, subject to the availability
of a hall.
A further Planning meeting would be held in August
if required.
The next regular meeting would be held on Thursday
17th September at 7.30 pm in Arlington Village Hall.
The meeting closed at 10.00 pm.
Katrina Larkin, Clerk, 31st July 2009
Signed………………………………………………………..Chairman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ANNEX A
ARLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL
St Bede’s School, Upper Dicker, nr. Hailsham, BN27 3QH
New Stud Boarding Houses and Car Parking.
Arlington Parish Council considered this planning application at their meeting on 9th July 2009.
They are aware of the comments made to the Planning Department on behalf of the Dicker Residents’ Association, and they are aware of the results of the two surveys undertaken by the DRA. Both surveys have been criticised as procedurally flawed, but it is at least safe to say that public opinion on this proposed major development is not homogeneous.
The Parish Council’s comments are as follows:
Is the proposed use suitable in the area or not? It can be argued that the proposed development is too big and in the wrong place. It will bring 136 boarders and associated staff into an area of the village which is not currently used for boarding, and is on the opposite side of the main road to the main school campus.
Against this, the school has argued that there is to be no material increase in the number of pupils boarding (which would rise from 346 to 348), and that the new development would only replace outdated housing stock in an efficient manner, avoiding the wastefulness and impracticality of demolition or extension of existing buildings. Furthermore, the site has been used for residential purposes before, though admittedly not within the last two years, and not to the same degree.
A majority of councillors are persuaded by these arguments. However, questions remain: what are the outdated boarding houses to be used for? Are the numbers of day pupils attending the main campus expected to increase?
Are the size and appearance of the proposed development in
character with its surroundings? A majority of
councillors like the design, and find it ‘attractive and in keeping’ with its
surroundings. One says ‘the boarding houses will be very beautiful and will not
detract from the charm of our village in any way’. The major caveat concerns
the sheer size of what is proposed: ‘this is a huge development which will
overwhelm Stud House’. Another councillor suggests that it would be better to
have one boarding house with a lower roof height (to match Stud House) even if
that meant giving it a larger footprint, and replacing some of the outdated
boarding stock on the main campus.
APC appreciates that the
roof heights have been reduced whilst the planning application is under
consideration, and this is welcomed. The tallest part of the development
(1500mm above Stud House) is now confined to the furthest end of the site where
it has the least impact. However, a majority of councillors would like to see
more done, especially in view of the effect on neighbouring properties (see
below).
Effect on neighbouring properties. It is undeniable that the proposed development would have a profound
effect on neighbouring properties. Councillors are most concerned about the
effect on the occupant of The White House, which is only 20 metres away, and
the residents of other properties behind the site. Visually and perhaps
mentally they would be completely dominated by the new boarding houses.
Noise could be a major issue for them.
Lighting could be a major
issue not only for them but also for a wider circle of residents, as light
pollution at night severely detracts from the peace of this largely rural area.
A majority of councillors
feel that noise should be controllable, and so should light pollution (e.g. low
level downlighters should be provided in the car park; time clocks should be
carefully monitored and corrected when necessary). These particular objections
are therefore not insuperable. The more intractable problem is that of
overlooking or overshadowing.
Overlooking and overshadowing. Councillors accept that St Bede’s and their architect have worked hard
to eliminate any overshadowing of existing properties. They also accept that
direct overlooking has also been avoided.
Nevertheless, they are
still very concerned about the visual dominance of the new boarding houses from
neighbouring properties, especially the White House. They welcome the
suggestion that the plans might be further amended to put a hip instead of an
end gable on the side of the proposed building nearest the White House.
If the residents most
affected can be satisfied by amendments to the plans, all well and good.
Otherwise, some councillors would wish to sustain objections to the planning
application on behalf of those residents.
Parking provision. There
are concerns about the net loss of parking spaces in the village. Although the
school has promised to address this problem in the longer term, the Parish
Council’s immediate concern is for the loss of four roadside spaces east of the
proposed new site entrance, making it that much harder for pupils of Park Mead
Primary School at pick up/drop off time to move around without having to cross
a site entrance.
It has been reported to
APC that the Governing Body of Park Mead School is satisfied with the safety
measures that are to be put in place, including a granite set rumble strip in
the site entrance, and a sign ‘Pedestrians have Priority’. However, APC would
urge that further safety measures are still needed in this section of Michelham
Priory Road: installing speed humps or a pedestrian crossing would surely be
cost effective improvements. If the development proceeds, the promised safety
measures should be written into the contract.
Landscaping. The Parish
Council understands that planting will be undertaken to soften the impact of
the development and enhance its amenities, and has no special concerns on this
score.
Highway provision. If the
development proceeds, then once the present exit from the site is blocked off
and moved, the Parish Council would like to be assured that no additional
entrance or exit is being considered.
They would also ask that
construction workers are not allowed to use the horse path, which should remain
exclusively for riders.
Summary and conclusions. The above statement incorporates the views of
two councillors who were unavoidably absent but had prepared written statements
of their views on the proposed development.
Of the four councillors
present and voting:
ONE
would OBJECT;
TWO
would give CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE
- the main conditions being that the
occupant of the White House should be satisfied with the
Scheme, and that Michelham
Priory Road should be made safe;
ONE
would NOT OBJECT but would want the impact on the White House to
be minimised, and the road safety issues to
be tackled.
All councillors agree
that the parish needs future consistency of thought from the School, which has
become such a major player on the village scene.
Arlington Parish Council
would welcome consideration of this planning application by Wealden’s
Development Control (South) Sub-Committee.