Minutes of the meeting of the Maresfield Parish Council held on

 Tuesday 20 January 2004 in the Church Hall Nutley

Present:  Cllr W King (Chairman), Cllr P Tester , Cllr H Fry, Cllr J Gutteridge, Cllr K Ogden, Cllr R Street, Cllr R Tester, Cllr Miss M Thomas, Cllr Mrs S Weekes, Cllr R Woodgate. County Cllr T Reid. District Cllr F Brown, District Cllr J Hollins, District Cllr Mrs S Martin,.  Clerk: Tony Allen. 

The meeting was reconvened in the Church Hall due to the large number of Parishioners in attendance.

There were 62 members of the public present, all of whom were attending the public section of the meeting concerned with the traffic calming measures being proposed for School Hill (London Road) in Maresfield.

The Chairman welcomed everybody and explained that the Parish Council had difficulty in rotating the Council meeting around the villages, due to block bookings in the Village Halls.

The Chairman stated that the debate and subsequent Council discussion and voting, regarding the proposed traffic calming measures for School Hill in Maresfield, could not go ahead. The Chairman explained that the consultation document, which had been approved by ESCC on 14 January 2004, could not be put to the meeting, as ESCC had been contacted by a bus company who were concerned about the effect on their timetables and costs, and had therefore withdrawn their approval.

The Chairman explained that the Parish Council could only consider the proposal to Parishioners if all the pros & cons had been fully addressed; only then could a balanced judgment be made and therefore no decision could be made until the new problem raised by the bus company had been addressed.

The Chairman took the opportunity to address 3 issues that had been raised in Parishioners letters on the subject:-

• Many Parishioners seemed to hold the view that the decision to proceed with the School Hill trial had already been made. The Chairman stated that this was not so; all of the work to-date had been preparation for presenting a proposal to Parishioners.
• Many Parishioners seemed to hold the view that there had been no consultation. The Chairman explained that consultation would not be effective until the whole package was in place. Consultation would take place in 2 stages:
  • First, before the trial goes ahead, all Maresfield Parishioners would be consulted by post and asked to vote. The trial would only go ahead if approved.
  • During the trial there would be a 6 month period during which Parishioners and anybody else can express their comments to ESCC.
• All issues had been covered by TEWP, which was made up of 3 Councillors and 6 non-Councillors (2 from each village), and a lot of hard work had taken place over 2 years to get this far. The consultation document was considered to be complete and was agreed by ESCC as fair to Parishioners, prior to the issue raised by the bus company.

The Chairman stated that, whilst the pros & cons would not debated at this meeting, but would be at a subsequent meeting if the bus issue is resolved, Parishioners could ask questions and make points, which were as follows, with the Chairman’s responses in italics:-

What was the definition of a Maresfield villager, as there were some people outside the Village boundary who were affected by this proposal?

Although the Parish Council decide who to consult, ESCC would insist that all within the A26 boundary to the east, including the by-pass, Queens Drive and those with access to Millwood Lane & Drive, should be included.

What bus service was affected?

The Uckfield to East Grinstead service would have to go around the by-pass and up Batts Bridge road. The bus company was considering the effect on the timetable and costs.

What was the view of the Sussex Police regarding cars using the village routes dangerously? The Traffic Division of Sussex Police have been involved in the TEWP work and were happy with the Village consultation document.

 What was the consultation process and timing?

The consultation would take place in the public session of a Council meeting if and when the proposal was ready to be put on the table.

 Why were villagers not consulted prior to the preparation of the proposal document, and only now when the bus route problem had been identified?

This was a misunderstanding of the facts already stated. ESCC had already agreed the proposal document and the bus route problem had only now come to light. MPC would not allow the proposal document to go ahead and be reviewed until it was fair and covers all issues, and had been agreed by ESCC.

 Why not have a formal public meeting and discussion?

TEWP were tasked by the Parish Council to look at issues and bring them to Council. Parishioners would be welcome to the Council meetings, but this proposal would not be subject to a formal public meeting, which ESCC said was the normal procedure.

 It was not the number of vehicles but their speed.

TEWP have detailed figures of traffic movements.

 TEWP were not looking far enough ahead. For example, the Business Park and future hose building would generate a lot more traffic in Batts Bridge Road.

Point noted.

 How would a revised consultation document be made available?

This would be available at the Parish Council meeting which debates it, with Agendas posted on notice boards as usual. If approved then each Parishioner would get a copy in the post.

 What form of consultation had there been with local businesses?

TEWP have made detailed studies of traffic movements, including stopping, which were recorded in public documents.

 Would any new proposal be discussed with Parishioners free to speak and no time limit set? Could villagers have their own public meeting and invite MPC along?

Why can the bus company comment now, but not the villagers?

Yes – all comments and views must be heard, otherwise it would be mad for the PC to proceed.If there was a public meeting, the decision made there would only cover those who attended, thus excluding the views of some Parishioners. A postal ballot would allow all to express their views via a voting slip.

 Were the proposed dates of April to September for the trial now cancelled?

These dates never formally existed. Dates for the trial cannot be set until it was approved.

 CCllr Reid addressed the meeting. He stated that there was a larger issue at stake. CCllr Reid stated that Maresfield Parish Council was an aggressive, professional, energetic and modern Parish Council, with very hard working unpaid Councillors. With the School Hill trial, the Parish Council were attempting a first in the County by funding a trial that ESCC cannot afford to. CCllr Reid stated that this was a great opportunity for the Parish and Parishioners should recognise the uniqueness of the trial and the efforts of their Parish Council. CCllr Reid offered his congratulations to the Parish Council.

 Cllr Miss M Thomas stated that the proposal would of necessity include discussions on funding and therefore, as a Nutley Councillor, she felt that this must involve all Villages.

 Cllr Fry stated that TEWP have proposals to deal with the dangerous by-pass.

 The Chairman opened the meeting.

1.1            Apologies for absence were received from Cllr T Sparrow, Cllr G Hardy. District Cllr Mrs P Kennedy, District Cllr N Buck.  . 

 1.2            Declarations of interest – there were none.

 The Chairman introduced and welcomed WPC Cathy Cole to the meeting. Ms Cole explained that she was one of several Response Officers and she was allocated to the Maresfield Parish, working a shift system (2 earlies, 2 lates & 2 nights) which had the benefit of placing her in the villages at different times of the day. Ms Cole explained that each Officer had their own personal style and that she was keen to be part of the community and attend meetings. Ms Cole stated that when she is not on duty, she checks the incident logs relating to Maresfield Parish to keep abreast of what had been happening in the villages. The Chairman thanked Ms Cole and was pleased to accept her offer to speak to the meeting again at a future date, and  noted that she was attending on a day off

 2.1            Minutes of last meeting for approval – these were approved.

 2.2            Matters arising from those minutes – there were none.

 3            Reports by and questions to:-

 3.1            County councillor:-

 CCllr Reid stated that Members may have seen press reports concerning a top-up of £350m to councils from the Chancellor. Out of this ESCC only received £4960 and WSCC received £5600, whereas Kent received £8m and Hampshire £7m. CCllr Reid stated that there appeared to be flaws in the formula for calculating payments to councils, which ESCC were vigorously investigating.

CCllr Reid stated that the Revenue Support Grant from central govt to ESCC was in fact an £11.9 million increase on this years total grant - however £11.5 million must be passed on (passported) to education (schools) leaving only £400K additional funding for all other services. When one realises that highway maintenance costs alone were inflating at some 8.5% on near an £11 million budget the difficulties became very obvious.

CCllr Reid reported that the ESCC rating of 'weak', in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) of County and Shire councils, had recently been upgraded to 'good'. CCllr Reid stated that ESCC were the most improved council and that the original rating was due to a Social Services element.

CCllr Reid reported that, following the successful Speed Management Conference in December 2003 involving Parish Councils, ESCC would now be talking to Oxfordshire Council, to look in detail at the success of Oxford's 30 mph blanket speed limit trial..

Cllr P Tester stated that figures quoted in the press for road maintenance showed that, out of £15M only £4M is spent on road surfacing. Cllr Tester asked CCllr Reid what the other £11M is spent on. CCllr Reid said that he would have to take the question away with him. ACTION: Cllr P Tester to email CCllr Reid.

 Cllr Fry asked CCllr Reid if ESCC were investigating why they got so little from the Chancellor’s top ups. CCllr Reid stated that they were pursuing this vigorously as there was clearly a need to understand the reasoning behind it.

 Cllr Ogden asked CCllr Reid why the County Fire Service was now amalgamated with that of Brighton & Hove for budgetary purposes. CCllr Reid stated that they already were but were now able to precept directly.

3.2              District councillors:-

DCllr Mrs S Martin gave the following report:-

Council tax on Second and Long Term Empty Homes -

From 24 January this year the Council Tax discount percentage for Class A & B second homes would be reduced from 50% to 10% and the discount percentage for long term empty homes would be reduced from 50% to 0% with effect of 1 April 2004.

Car Parking charges in Wealden District

Consultation was going ahead with regard to raising income through direct charging for car

parking.

Freedom Leisure

Responsibility for managing the three Leisure Centres throughout the Wealden District was

given to Freedom Leisure in 2002 for 10 years and at that time a reducing grant was

agreed.  This year’s grant of £825K was recently approved.

Affordable Housing in Wealden

Ashley Brown, Director of Rural Affordable Housing & Related Projects reports that he had made considerable progress with this important initiative.  So far 22 Parishes have been consulted and 21 have agreed to participate in the New Housing Needs Survey.

Council Tax

The Government grant to Wealden would only be increased by £100k, 1.4%, for the year 2004/05 which was considerably less than the current rate of inflation and the minimum 3% increase that the Government believes had been given to all authorities. 

Licensing Act – 2003

Responsibility for issuing all licences such as alcohol, taxis, night clubs etc., presently with Magistrates, would become the responsibility of District Councils and training of Council Members and setting up of Committees would take place later this year.

DCllr Brown stated that the Government had assumed that WDC were already getting income from car parking charges. DCllr Brown also stated that 70% of WDC’s 3500 tenants were receiving benefits.

DCllr Hollins stated that WDC were in the process of reviewing their tourism strategy in order to retain tourists and find more ways of encouraging them to spend money in the District.

Cllr Fry asked why the Government grant increase to WDC was so low. DCllr Mrs S Martin said that WDC were trying to understand the Government’s methods of calculating the amounts. CCllr Reid stated that the average for councils was 8% and that one explanation was that there is a low salary base in ESCC.

Cllr Miss M Thomas stated that high property values vs. low income levels surely make WDC in need of more help. CCllr Reid agreed and stated that ESCC were pursuing this matter and pointed out that census statistics showed that in East Sussex, 48% of households have nobody in employment, including retirees. DCllr Martin stated that the figures also showed low levels of unemployment in WDC ( 0.9% at 6/03), with three-quarters of those employed working in the public sector. CCllr Reid stated that the high number of elderly and retirees had an effect on Council Tax levels.

4.1       Committee & Working Party minutes and reports; Reports by and questions to Chairmen

            1            Planning – Cllr Ogden stated that the main work of the Planning Committee was in three areas:

• Usual fortnightly meetings re. Planning Applications and feedback of issues to WDC
• Wealden Local Plan – concerned that the current Deposit Plan expires in April 2004 and that the new Plan would not be adopted for approximately 18 months. DCllr Brown stated that he had been informed by Mick Oldham at WDC that the current planning rules would continue to be used and he would be writing to Chairmen concerning the new Planning Law.
• Affordable Housing – the development of 6 dwellings at Old Forge Lane was being held up due to problems identifying adequate parking spaces. The Planning Committee were urging WDC to complete this project within 2 years from the start to meet their own target. Other sites were being considered with WDC.

The Chairman left the room declaring a prejudicial interest in the next item of discussion, the development at Melbourne, Crowborough Road, Nutley. The owner of this property being an ex client of the Chairman.

Chairmanship passed to Vice-Chairman Cllr P Tester.

DCllr Mrs S Martin reported that all work had stopped at the Melbourne site and that the Applicants were submitting a new Planning Application for consideration at the WDC Planning meeting in February 2004.

Cllr Fry stated that work at the site was still continuing and that a stop notice should have been placed on the development, particularly with regard to the possible asbestos danger identified.

DCllr Brown stated that WDC were actively investigating these issues and that MPC should see the new Application for review by their Planning Committee.

Cllr Leaney stated that the problem had been caused by WDC surveying errors and failing to identify a neighbouring property.

The Chairman returned to the meeting.

CCllr Reid stated that ESCC were looking at the impact on highways from the 80-100K houses planned to be built in the County in the period up to 2026.

            2            Finance & General Purposes – The Chairman had a report from Cllr Sparrow stating that Month 9 accounts were to hand and showed that expenditure was on track or below budgeted amounts and that there were no surprises to note from these figures. The Clerk was praised for the speed in making these figures available.

The Chairman stated that the auditing of the accounts for 2002/03 was overdue because of the poor management accounting system in use during that period. The Clerk reported that Tony Pritchett would be at the Parish Office on 21 January 2004 to prepare these accounts for audit and that the internal and external audits should be completed within a couple of months.

[           3            Environment & Maintenance – Cllr Miss M Thomas asked what the latest position with Dodds Bank Farm was. Cllr R Tester reported that the Keeys brothers still have cars and vans parked on Forest land, and that the Conservators were taking legal action for their removal. Cllr R Tester stated that ESCC were also taking action and that he had discussed the matter with the Environment Agency at Worthing who were to get more powers to deal with such issues. DCllr Brown stated that the matter had been discussed at the Conservators meeting on 19 January 2004. Cllr P Tester pointed out that the Conservators were pursuing all illegally parked vehicles, not just picking on the Keeys brothers.

Cllr Ogden asked whether there were still problems with unauthorised parking on the Maresfield Recreation Ground. Cllr R Tester stated that he was not aware of any. Cllr Woodgate confirmed that vans were no longer parked there. Cllr Leaney stated that the car park was half full during a recent football match on the MRG.

Cllr Fry confirmed that the footpath from Crowborough Road to the A22 had now been cleared.

Cllr Mrs S Weekes reported that the Maresfield Football Club was now leasing the Isfield football ground.

The Clerk reported that Alun Michael MP’s portfolio also included the horse. ACTION: Clerk to provide Cllr Miss M Thomas with a copy of the recent communication received from this Minister on this subject.

The Clerk reported that he had been informed by the Clerk at Forest Row that they were holding a public meeting in their village hall, at 8 pm on 3 February 2004, to discuss the West Sussex Structure Plan/East Grinstead Relief Road and the response required to be made to WSCC by 20 February 2004. The Clerk stated that Bruce Morley would be attending but that Members were also welcomed. Cllr Miss M Thomas stated that a formal MPC position needed to be taken on this issue. ACTION: Cllr Miss M Thomas to attend the Forest Row public meeting and put a paper to the next MPC meeting on 17 February.

Cllr P Tester stated that ESCC had claimed to have no accurate estimates of figures regarding the expected impact on traffic movements south of the Relief Road, yet the WSCC web site states that their figures for southerly traffic did not agree with the ESCC figures. CCllr Reid stated that this was the second phase of the consultation plan and that the ESCC figures were only rough estimates but double the WSCC estimates.

Cllr R Tester asked what impact the inclusion of road development in the agreement for the development of the 2500 houses had on the project. CCllr Reid stated that this was probably quite a lot.

DCllr Hollins stated that the House Building Federation was under provided by £160K.

DCllr Mrs S Martin stated that the need for housing did not accord with the current static birth rate figures. Cllr Miss M Thomas said that there are, though, changing patterns of occupancy, particularly single occupation homes.

Cllr Ogden stated that it may be worth looking at the Hailsham figures to determine the level of immigrants included in housing numbers.

DCllr Brown stated that the Nutley Bus Shelter had been damaged on New Years Eve, but that the Police had told him that they require it to be reported to them by MPC. ACTION: Clerk to speak to Gilly Johnson at Uckfield Police Station (tel. Ext. 33280).

            4            Civil Protection – Cllr Street reported that the next meeting would be on 5 February 2004. The Clerk reported that he had only received approximately 100 completed Civil Emergency questionnaires, out of the 1600 distributed to Parishioners.

            5            Traffic & Environment Working Party – Mr Morley stated that he was a little upset that, since the meeting with ESCC and others on 14 January 2004 which agreed the 9^th draft of the School Hill trial proposal document, ESCC Officers had since met with a small number of Maresfield residents in a private meeting, which had halted progress and scuppered the hard work of TEWP.

Cllr Fry stated that, at the last Council meeting, Cllr Ogden had stated that an alternative traffic calming proposal had been put to TEWP but it had not been considered by TEWP. Cllr Fry stated that Parishioners should have been allowed to fully air their views at the meeting and had probably been left frustrated, and that a bus route issue should have made no difference to proceedings. The Chairman stated that the bus issue was an open issue and an unknown quantity which therefore mean the whole project could not be properly assessed until the bus issue was fully understood, and that prevented the Council going ahead. The Chairman stated that there would be a long discussion with Parishioners if and when the School Hill proposal goes ahead.

Cllr Miss M Thomas stated that Parishioners outside of Maresfield may feel excluded and that Parish Council time and funding issues were being overlooked. Cllr Miss M Thomas stated that the School Hill trial issues with ESCC should not attract such a high priority and that the whole Parish should be consulted on the School Hill trial as it would impact on other roads outside of Maresfield. Cllr Miss M Thomas questioned whether the PC was in favour of closing roads rather than looking at other calming measures, and that the sustainability of traffic levels in the Parish was not being properly looked at.  Cllr Miss M Thomas stated that traffic movements in the whole Parish should be looked at first before any prioritisation takes place. Cllr Miss M Thomas pointed out that other areas deserve equal priority and that the School Hill proposal was of little interest to the other villages. Cllr Miss M Thomas asked what evidence there was that the School Hill trial was the most important use of the PC’s time and money.

Mr Morley asked if Cllr Miss M Thomas would be of the same opinion if it was a Nutley project under consideration, and whether, in that case, other villages should be consulted. Cllr Miss M Thomas stated that any project, if a known and agreed priority, should be open to discussion with other villages, so that they were consulted on time and money being spent.

Cllr Street stated that Councillors were delegated to make decisions on behalf of Parishioners: we cannot have a plebiscite for every decision.

Cllr Ogden pointed out that School Hill was a bad design and that only 20% of the 1M traffic movements stopped in the village.

Cllr Fry stated that the priority of the School Hill trial needed to be re-examined as he felt that TEWP could not have properly considered all priorities. Mr Morley stated that, as a member of TEWP, Cllr Fry was welcome to raise this at the TEWP meeting on 29 January 2004.

Cllr Miss M Thomas stated that a Parish wide mandate was needed to enable the School Hill trial to stay as top priority.

CCllr Reid left the meeting.

Cllr P Tester pointed out that the Parish Council had set up TEWP to deliberate, decide and advise Council, and that it was not proper to always question TEWP’s methods. The Chairman agreed and stated that he was surprised by Councillors’ agitations.

Cllr Leaney said that there should be an overall mandate regarding traffic in the Parish put to Council by TEWP, not just the School Hill trial per se. Cllr Leaney felt that Councillors were not in possession of all facts.

The Chairman asked Members to vote on the proposal by Cllr Miss M Thomas that there should be a full Parish consultation prior to moving forward with the School Hill trial. Cllr Miss M Thomas voted for this proposal. The Chairman, Cllr P Tester, Cllr Street, Cllr Gutteridge and Cllr Ogden voted against. The rest were abstentions.

            6            Ashdown Business Park Working Group – The Clerk stated that the next meeting would be held on 26 January 2004, to review the current positions of ESCC and WDC.

            7            Parklands Play Area Sub-Committee – Cllr Gutteridge stated that the Lease had now been signed and the next meeting would be held on 22 January 2004.

4.2            Outside bodies reports

            1            Ford's Green Committee – Cllr P Tester stated that the next meeting would be on 29 January 2004.

            2            Maresfield Conservation Group – Cllr Ogden stated that the next meeting would be on 21 January 2004. Cllr Ogden stated that the Group would be questioned on its allocation of £2K to the School Hill trial and that the article in the MCG magazine regarding the School Hill trial had not been cleared with TEWP. The Chairman stated that he had written to Dick Thompson expressing regret as to the issues of poor communication within MCG.

Mr Morley left the meeting.

            3            Maresfield Recreation Ground Committee – Cllr Mrs S Weekes reported that the last meeting of the MRGC had discussed the renewal of fencing between the Recreation Ground and adjacent field, and the acquisition of Mr Watt’s field.

Cllr P Tester stated that the return to the Charity Commission was overdue. The Clerk reported that a holding letter had been sent while MPC discuss the issue with SALC.

Cllr Sparrow had submitted a report to the Clerk relating to Items 4.2.4 – 4.2.6, which is reproduced in the relevant sections below:-

            4            Wealden District Association of Local Councils - Next meeting on 28 January when the Chief Constable is listed to attend so police related matters would be the main agenda item. WDALC also made the local press in relation to the issues surrounding travellers. In view of the   bonfire incident situation at Firle that all Councils (Parish, District, and County) need to act in a co-ordinated but extremely carefully considered way in the coming year as the traveller season returns.

            5            Action in rural Sussex - AirS is ready to help with the development of youth related issues and activities in the Parish and a local champion is urgently needed.

In the longer term, as the Government looks to the voluntary sector to be more fully involved in the delivery of local services, and would be providing more funding in that direction, so would AirS probably be absorbing a fuller role in providing rural economic and social help to villages and communities in partnership with Parish Councils. communities.

            6            Wealden Local Strategic Partnership - The Partnership recently held a "visioning session" when the current work was put into the context of what the people of Wealden want by the year 2017 (15 years on from 2002).  Part of this discussion covered the need for the Partners to show what has been achieved so far.  Also the changing role of Parish Councils and how they fit with the LSP would have to be taken into account.

            7            Sussex Association of Local Councils - The new secretary is now well in post and has already been of valuable service to this Parish.  Maresfield Councillors and the Clerk are shortly to take advantage of SALC training courses.

            8            Community Rail Partnership - While adequate funding is "on the table" it can only be unlocked by a grant from SEEDA which is proving hard to extract.  The signs are good though.  The first meeting of the Uckfield-Oxted line has been held and a "job list" drawn up of improvements and actions once the development officer is in place.  Cllr Norman Buck has kindly agreed to chair that line Group.

The Clerk confirmed that he was researching the issue of travellers policy and insurance aspects. Cllr Miss M Thomas asked that travellers are included as an agenda item on the E&M Committee. Ms Cole agreed to provide information and the views of the Police on the issue of travellers. ACTION: Clerk to write to Mary-Claire Deane, Director Community Services at WDC regarding the new WDC policy with regard to travellers.

5            Chairman's Report – This Report had been circulated by the Clerk prior to the meeting. Cllr Fry asked whether Portfolio holders should only keep a watching brief with regard to press issues. The Chairman stated that press issues and releases should be handled via him and/or the Clerk, but that this could be reviewed at the AGM in May 2004. Cllr Miss M Thomas stated that Councillors could prepare draft articles and the Chairman said that he and the Clerk would be grateful for this.

Cllr P Tester stated that in Item 3, showing the number of electoral roll figures, Fairwarp appeared to be missing. The Chairman stated that Fairwarp is included in the Hartfield Ward and therefore not shown separately.

6          Clerk's Report - This Report had been circulated by the Clerk prior to the meeting. Cllr Fry asked the Clerk if he was managing and the Clerk replied that he was. Cllr Miss M Thomas asked that a letterbox be provided outside the Parish Office for Councillors to leave and/or collect items. ACTION: Clerk to liaise with the Social Club.

Cllr P Tester stated that the provision of Broadband communication in Nutley was imminent.

7            Payments to be made: for approval -This Report had been circulated by the Clerk prior to the meeting. The payments were approved.

8          Other items:-

            8.1            Draft Submission to Boundary Commission for England – It was agreed in accordance with advice from WDC’s electoral affairs officer that, although the Commission were recommending that the Danehill, Fletching, & Nutley Ward remains in the Wealden County constituency, it was wise for MPC to put in a submission to the Commission to strengthen the case and pre-empt any attempt to change this, as further submissions are being accepted until 14 February 2004.

The Chairman stated that he would remove the reference to Forest Row at the top of Page 3. The submission was agreed, as amended.

9          Any Other Business – The Chairman reported that Pauline & David Mc Donnell sent their regards from their new home in Ireland.

Cllr Mrs S Weekes stated that MRG are having a quiz night and had asked if the PC could get a team together. ACTION: All volunteers to contact Cllr Mrs S Weekes.

Cllr Fry asked the meeting to express thanks to Cllr Mrs S Weekes for organising the dinner held on 17 January 2004, and this was agreed with acclaim. Cllr Mrs S Weekes stated that she was working on a future event.

10                Date of next meeting – 17 February 2004

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 22:15