Minutes of the Special Meeting of Maresfield Parish Council held on

 Wednesday 8^th December 2004 in Bonners School, Maresfield

Present:  Cllr W King, Cllr P Tester, Cllr J Gutteridge, Cllr K Ogden, Cllr R Tester,

Cllr T Sparrow, Cllr H Fry, Cllr Mrs S Weekes, Cllr R Street, Cllr S Leaney.

DCllr J Hollins and DCllr Mrs S Martin were in the audience. Clerk: Tony Allen.

1.      Public Questions – Mr J Compson, Chairman of the Nutley Conservation Group (NCG), made the following points:-

·         NCG did not believe that the HOPE/Hillmead proposal had addressed the Affordable Housing problems in Nutley

·         Action In Rural Sussex (AIRS) surveys had identified only 5 people requiring rented Affordable Housing in Nutley, so why build 10 HOPE houses? Another 5 people wanted 50/50 housing.

·         What about self-build Affordable Housing?

• Were the Parish Councillors happy that public consultation had been adequate, as WDC had only put the Hillmead proposal into the Revised Draft Local Plan (RDLP), with the public having no say in the alternative sites

·         The whole process was shrouded in secrecy, denials and misinformation

·         Had the Parish Council considered the considerable costs involved in the Hillmead proposal, with up to 4 homes needing to be demolished to provide site access, affecting the rights and quality of life of the existing occupants

·         There were too many exceptions to WDC’s Exceptions Policy; 10 Exceptions would be needed to enable Affordable Housing in Hillmead, whereas current Policies ensured that Nutley remained a special village within the AONB.

·         NCG believed that Affordable Housing is needed but that all types should be considered as part of the Local Development Framework (LDF) process, with all villages involved

2.                  Apologies for absence - Cllr G Hardy. DCllr F Brown, DCllr N Buck,

DCllr Mrs P Kennedy.

3.      Declarations of interest – Cllr Ms M Thomas as a Friend of the High Weald AONB and a member of the Nutley Conservation Group.

Cllr Fry as a committee member of the Nutley Conservation Group.

Cllr Ogden as a member of the Maresfield Conservation Group.

Cllr Gutteridge as a member of the Maresfield Conservation Group.

Cllr Leaney as a Friend of the High Weald AONB and a Friend of the Ashdown Forest

Chairman as a friend of Mrs Compson re. Hillmead, friend of Mr & Mrs Greig re. Park Farm and as a Governor of Bonners School.

4.                  Proposals by WDC – the following proposals from the RDLP were considered by the meeting:-

a)     Ashdown Business Park (ABP)

b)     Maresfield Park (discussion paper circulated prior to meeting)

c)     Hillmead (discussion paper circulated prior to meeting)

d)     Park Farm (discussion paper circulated prior to meeting)

e)     Other issues

5.                  Ashdown Business Park – It was agreed that the following points should be included in a separate response to WDC:-

• There was already a large traffic problem in the area of the ABP, and any future development at the site must incorporate substantial improvements to the traffic situation, e.g. widening of A272 near the site, new roundabout access from the A22 to the ABP and any new housing south of Maresfield

Special Council Meeting – 8 December 2004 - Minutes                                  Page 2

• The original outline planning permission included a tree screen/boundary on the south side of the site and along the A272, and this should be retained in any variation such as a change of use to light industrial
• Objection to a waste management facility at the ABP should be stated as it would adversely affect the ABP’s operation and traffic capacity

6.      Maresfield Park – It was agreed that this was a closed issue, noting that WDC had given planning permission for a joint development of two houses at Springbank and Fairhaven; permission for a single house development at Springbank; that Fairhaven had submitted an application for a single house development; and that no development at South Paddock was currently anticipated.

7.                  Hillmead

The following comments were made by Cllr Ms M Thomas:-

• The Parish Council should want to find Affordable Housing sites for people in need in Nutley and the other villages
• Past surveys had identified only 5 people in need of social housing, but no demographic information had been gives to help understand the different types of housing that may be needed
• The Hillmead site had been discussed by the Parish Council and WDC over a long time, on a secretive basis at the request of WDC. The 6 week WDC consultation period was too short and a lot more information was still needed
• Access to the site via Hillmead was a problem as up to 7 people would be displaced with no guarantee of returning to Nutley, most of whom had lived there for many years, which was immoral and a waste of money and resources
• The Hillmead site was within the Pale and AONB, and formed part of one of the most protected sites in the area through Government, County and District policies
• Access to the site from Clockhouse Lane, i.e. not via Hillmead, would involve widening Clockhouse Lane so as to demolish a private garage and take part of a private garden
• The WDC statement that Hillmead was the only site on offer is not acceptable
• It would be better to address the issue of Affordable Housing in the Local Development Framework (LDF) on a more transparent basis
• Recommends that the Parish Council objects to the inclusion of the Hillmead site in the Revised Draft Local Plan (RDLP)
• Housing Association rents were higher than Council rents
• A pro-active Parish Council should suggest other sites under the general Exceptions Policy

The following comments were made by Cllr Ogden:-

• Experience dictates that the need for this Affordable Housing had been proved
• There could be a lead time of up to 10 years for this type of housing to be completed, so future demands should be taken into consideration as well
• Currently WDC only build 50 Affordable Homes p.a., against a demand target of 150 p.a.
• There were existing cases of need for this housing in Nutley for people with long ties to the village
• Not all people in need of this housing had put their names forward
• The WDC Exception Policy was designed for providing just such housing to meet the need

Special Council Meeting – 8 December 2004 - Minutes                                  Page 3

• If the young were not retained in the village then the life of the village dies
• Most of houses in Nutley were within the AONB and the Pale, including some built very recently
• At this stage only approval was required to include the Hillmead site in the RDLP, not the details of any plans
• Agrees that it would not be suitable to knock down houses to provide access to the site, but this could be fought at a later stage in the process when Parishioners would be able to comment on any plans and designs
• If the Hillmead proposal was rejected on the access issue, then it would never happen

The following comments were made by Cllr P Tester:-

• There was a very strong need for Affordable Housing in Nutley, particularly for young people who have had to leave the village
• The benefit of such housing should be viewed in the long-term, i.e. for the life of the houses
• Other access to the site was possible, no houses should be knocked down
• There may be more preferable sites, but Hillmead was the only option in the RDLP and the chance to get Affordable Housing for Nutley should be taken
• Reference to the demolition of houses was not in the RDLP

The following comments were made by Cllr Leaney:-

• WDC’s contribution to this ‘subsidised’ site was the access through Hillmead, and compulsory purchase of the land may be necessary
• WDC were taking the easiest option, as with Old Forge Lane, the adjacent land/houses were owned by WDC
• Hillmead was not the best site, there were 100’s of sites that could accommodate 1 or 2 Affordable Houses
• The WDC statement that HOPE housing can only be allocated in the RDLP was incorrect. Policy HG54 sets out the Exceptions Policy so is open to use throughout the life of the RDLP
• The WDC Exceptions Policy was a narrow interpretation of Government guidance and is inflexible. A more radical approach was needed, e.g. if a landowner makes a plot available for Affordable Housing then the building of a house for the commercial market should be allowed
• The site at Hillmead should not go forward and the inadequacy of WDC’s Exceptions Policy should be highlighted

The following comments were made by Cllr R Tester:-

• Some people thought that Affordable Housing was a replacement for Council housing
• There was a need for affordable rented housing for the elderly, young and workers in the village
• Affordable Housing that had been provided privately  had mostly now all gone, e.g. tied cottages
• Approves the Hillmead site in principle if the access problem can be overcome, i.e. not accessed through Hillmead

The following comments were made by Cllr Mrs S Weekes:-

• Affordable Housing was needed urgently, despite it being unpopular with some people
• Personal experience had shown that privately rented housing was expensive and beyond the reach of most people in need of housing

Special Council Meeting – 8 December 2004 - Minutes                                  Page 4

The following comments were made by Cllr Street:-

• Personal experience had shown that it was hard to find employees in the area; there was a surfeit of employment and potential employees would be lost if the young were not retained in the villages
• Supports the principle of Affordable Housing and if Hillmead was the only choice, then it should go ahead
• Other access to the site was possible, no houses should be knocked down

The following comments were made by Cllr Sparrow:-

• Very concerned that if the Hillmead site was rejected, it could be seen that the Parish Council did not believe that it needed to add to the Affordable Housing stock
• It was crucial that people should be given housing opportunities and that they could stay in Nutley, in order to keep the community alive
• If the Hillmead proposal was rejected then it should be proposed that the Parish Council should pursue other Affordable Housing solutions
• The demolition of houses to provide access to the Hillmead site was not appropriate

The following comments were made by The Chairman:-

• Not enough time had been allowed for wider consultation. The Parish Council had done its best but the full extent of local support or objection was not known and the Council’s view would be taken on inadequate information. However individuals were able to respond directly to WDC
• The decision before Council was about the RDLP Hillmead proposal with access provided through Hillmead, involving the demolition of houses and the displacement of people
• Ashley Brown, WDC, had said that HOPE housing under the Exceptions Policy could only be provided under the RDLP/LDF, which appeared wrong in view of Cllr Leaney’s reference to Policy HG54

Councillors voted on the following Proposals:-

1.      Accept Hillmead proposal without Conditions

2.      Reject Hillmead proposal absolutely

3.      Qualified acceptance of the Hillmead proposal

4.      The Hillmead site, plus those previously discarded, should be put into the LDF for public consideration

No Councillors voted for proposal 1. or 2. and there was a majority vote in favour of Proposal 3., i.e. that the Hillmead site should be included in the RDLP, but with the Condition that no houses should be demolished to provide access to it.

It was therefore agreed that this should be the Parish Council’s response to WDC.

It was agreed that the Parish Council would also seek to provide further Affordable Housing through its contribution to the LDF process.

8.                  Park Farm

The following comments were made by Cllr Ogden:-

• Field End Residents Association (FERA), comprising approx. 130 people, had said no to the proposed Park Farm development and that the access via the Bowls Club was unsuitable
• Over 300 individual response forms had been sent to WDC objecting to any building at Park Farm

Special Council Meeting – 8 December 2004 - Minutes                                  Page 5

• Any building should start on the outskirts of Maresfield and move inwards
• A green ‘lung’ should be kept in the area behind/around Field End, the Leisure Centre and The Paddock
• WDC’s proposals had taken no account of any future development required and the whole issue should be addressed in the LDF process
• There were concerns about the spread of Maresfield towards Uckfield
• Bonners School did need more pupils
• There were currently inadequate doctors facilities for the village

The following comments were made by Cllr Gutteridge:-

• In general people did not want any more housing built in Maresfield, but recognised the reality that some would have to be built and therefore wished to have a say in the process
• A ‘green’ area must be preserved in the centre of the village
• The current process was piecemeal and should be rejected in favour of a more long-term approach
• Access and transport issues needed to be taken into account as local roads would become overloaded
• There was a danger that Maresfield would become like a small town, but without adequate facilities such as schools, shops, doctors, etc.

The following comments were made by Cllr Sparrow:-

• The need for development should be accepted
• Adequate infrastructure must be in place before any building takes place, e.g. shops, water supply, sewerage services, road/rail access, health facilities, educational facilities, etc.
• Local jobs must be available to new residents
• A proportion of Affordable Housing must also be provided
• WDC had ignored the Parish Council’s previous proposals which had been democratically arrived at
• The Parish Council should state what it thinks is right, as this will be seen by the Planning Inspector or Ombudsman in any enquiry

The following comments were made by Cllr P Tester:-

• The development of Maresfield was inevitable after the by-pass had been requested and provided
• A long-term strategy was needed, not one-off development, to ensure that the village gets what it wants
• The matter should be deferred into the LDF process

The following comments were made by Cllr Leaney:-

• Proper infrastructure was needed before any building commences
• The matter should be deferred into the LDF process

The following comments were made by the Chairman:-

• Keith Whitehead, WDC, had indicated that any attempt to defer RDLP development would result in intervention by the Secretary Of State, a risk of losing planning appeals and make it difficult to maintain development control. If allocations were set by an Inspector after intervention, no s106 agreements could be included so the potential for developer contribution to deal with issues created by developments would be lost

Special Council Meeting – 8 December 2004 - Minutes                                  Page 6

• The Parish Councils proposal, submitted in February 2004, had been ignored by WDC and FERA had some objections to it

• Notwithstanding, the Parish Council should not make its decisions driven by uncertain political issues but should state what it thinks is right, which could be a point of reference for any future inquiry. This was agreed

The following comments were made by Cllr Mrs S Weekes:-

• There was evidence of NIMBYism – houses were needed now
• A community centre was needed

It was agreed to reject the RDLP proposal for Park Farm as drafted by WDC.

Councillors voted on the following Proposals:-

1.      Stick to the Parish Council’s February 2004 proposal

2.      Reject development at Park Farm under the RDLP and put it into the LDF process

There was a unanimous vote in favour of Proposal 2. It was therefore agreed that this should be the Parish Council’s response to WDC. It was agreed that the response be based on the wording contained in the ‘DETAIL’ section of the Park Farm paper previously circulated to Councillors for the meeting.

DCllr Hollins and DCllr Mrs S Martin left the meeting.

9.                  Other Issues

The following comments were made by Cllr Ms M Thomas:-

• In general the changes to specific policies and strategies contained in the RDLP were an improvement
• The amendment to Para. 8.8, which referred to Policies DC5-DC7 did not incorporate provisions for the special protection required in particular areas recognised elsewhere in the Plan (e.g. the AONB, Ashdown Forest and SSSI’s). The words “in conjunction with all relevant natural environment policies” should be added to end of Para. 8.8

·         The general approach to the adoption of Policies in the Plan was to allow for all applicable policies to be applied, with a judgement process used where conflicts occur. Policy DC9 showed that this approach had not been adopted consistently

• Item dropped in the RDLP – DC3 – Item 4 where WDC had suggested the eradication of duplication, but in the Business Section DC3 was not referred to

It was agreed that the above should be reflected on a separate response form to WDC.

10.              Arrangements for finalisation of response

The Chairman noted that responses had to be with WDC by the evening of Monday 13^th December. It was agreed that the Chairman, Cllr Ogden and Cllr Ms M Thomas be authorised to prepare the responses and that the Clerk be authorised to send them.

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 21:30.