Minutes of the Maresfield Parish Council Extraordinary meeting held on

Monday 11^th June 2007 in the Village Hall, Maresfield

Present:         Cllr K Ogden (Chairman), Cllr D Barlow, Cllr D Finch, Cllr R Galley, Cllr J Gutteridge,

Cllr P Harris, Cllr C Stevenson, Cllr R Street, Cllr Mrs V Taylor, Mrs C Goosssens

(Asst Clerk).

Public:            James Daley (The Courier), Mike Eden, Peter Penfold, Justine Penfold,

Graham Allt, Jennifer Allt, Pat Kennedy, Alan Sallers, John Salter, Dick Thompson, Michael Wheeler, Mary Wrake, (approximately 22 members of the public were in attendance).

A.         Public Session.

            A1.       Address by Mr Dick Thompson, Chairman Maresfield Conservation Group.

o                    Has circulated a note to Parish Councillors as to the intended response to the application by Maresfield Conservation Group (MCG)

o                    MCG would prefer to see any major development in the village deferred to allow a more holistic approach to planning be it either large or small in scale

o                    It is diifficult to see any grounds on which WDC would reject this application especially as it is part of the Wealden Local Plan (LP) and fulfils the criteria of it

o                    It is essential that the Parish Council ensures that the conditions as outlined in the Wealden Local Plan are fully implemented i.e. mitigation of the effects of development; most of which relate to additional traffic and will result in an increase in traffic flow through the village

o                    The conditions related to this proposed development and as currently set out in the LP relate in the main to Batts Bridge Road and enhanced pedestrian access to Bonners School.

o                    The developer is unlikely to be willing to provide measures which are not a clear condition as already outlined in the plan i.e. additional traffic calming measures in other parts of the village

o                    MCG has looked at the conditions as outlined in the LP and has put together a scheme which it thinks will help to fulfil these i.e. additional measures on School Hill.

o                    The suggested safe pedestrian route to the school i.e. exiting onto the High Street via the church Lych Gate is not a safe exit and MCG has made an alternative suggestion

Cllr Harris joins the meeting.

o                    MCG hopes that the Parish Council will be able to join them in an approach to both WDC and ESCC to make our case

o                    There could be effects on the minor roads particularly Underhill, Millwood Lane and Nursery Lane and MCG would therefore like to see measures put in place in conjunction with the measures on School Hill

o                    The waste site to one side of the village will be operational in one year or so and will increase traffic through the village. Development of the remainder of the industrial site will create even more traffic

The following points were noted in discussion:

o                    Cllr Street questioned MCG’s suggested safe pedestrian route across the top of the recreation ground and enquired if this was just pedestrian access but added that access to the recreation ground itself along this route currently is in dispute and enquired whether MCG has had any dialogue with the owner Mr Watts

o                    Mr Thompson confirmed that their recommendation was purely for pedestrian access and that MCG has not had any dialogue with Mr Watts

o                    The Chairman said that he had today received copies of correspondence from Mr Watts stating that he has had no contact with anyone with regard to the use his access road

o                    MCG would like the developers to return to their original intention with regard to safe access to the school i.e. track from Park Farm House which was thought to be a public right of way

o                    Cllr Street reported that there is a continued dispute regarding the right for people using the recreation ground over this track as it has never has been a public right of way.  The Parish Council as trustee does not have a license from Mr Watts to use the track but is making a challenge to say that it has a prescriptive right having used it unchallenged for the last 50 years

      o                    Mr Thompson confirmed that he hoped that sensible negotiation with Mr Watts would be possible

o                    Mr Wheeler confirmed that he has spoken with Mr Watts and this is a situation that could possibly be negotiated. Furthermore the route proposed by the developer across the field is unsuitable to those in wheelchairs or to mothers with push chairs

            A2.       Address by Mr Michael Wheeler on behalf of the Field End and Maple Close                                   Residents Association.

o                    See hard copy note as provided by M Wheeler and attached at the end of the minutes.

            A3.       Other public representations.

Mr Fred Taylor:

o                    In 2004 there were 800 objections put to WDC opposing the allocation of Park Farm land for housing.  Although there is nothing to suggest that those 800 objections still stand there is no evidence to suggest that they don’t

o                    Maresfield has seen a 25% growth in housing over the last 20 years.  But this has been spread over a long period of time and on a number of sites

o                    An additional 80 houses would represent a16% increase in housing in one go using solely a Greenfield site.

o                    Any recommendation from the Parish Council should include something written about the piece of land withdrawn from the housing allocation because the opening that has been left by Persimmon smacks of potential further development

Mr Graham Allt:

o                    14 years ago when Field End was built it was noted that the services at the end were much larger than was required for those houses which had just been built

o                    The proposed development makes little provision for off-street parking and will potentially result in 160 additional vehicles passing through Maresfield village

o                    There appears to be no master plan with a number of piecemeal developments in and around the village

o                    The volume of traffic already increased by potential housing development will be compounded by traffic travelling both to and from the waste site

o                    Why isn’t Wealden looking at more suitable alternative sites e.g. the Brownfield site in Millwood Lane or the land at Lampool Corner

Mrs Pat Kennedy:

o                    Agrees with all points made re refusing application as already mentioned tonight

o                    Further to a recent meeting with ESCC Highways representatives at her house she has received a response stating that they do not see traffic in the village as a problem and don’t think a traffic management plan is required

Cllr Galley joined the meeting.

Mr Mike Eden:

o                    Expressed a fear that there is no overall plan and that developments are happening here and there

o                    There is a lack of infrastructure to support future developments

Mr Dick Thompson:

o                    MCG has collected data relating to through traffic in Maresfield and this provides an extremely good information base. The majority of traffic is through traffic and not generated by the village itself

o                    Additional through traffic will come from all the additional sites planned in and around Maresfield

o                    If WDC were to support the Park Farm development with either no conditions at all or minimum conditions, the village could be stuck with a development with no mitigation

o                    Under the LDF there is scope for further development in the village

o                    The Parish Council must try to do whatever it can if the development goes ahead to secure effective S106 Agreements.

The Chairman reported that all the WDC Planning Officers who put the scheme for Park Farm forward have now retired and have been replaced by a new team.

Maresfield’s local sewage plant is currently being increased in terms of capacity by 95%.

             Cllr Stevenson:

o                    The suggestion of 1.5 cars per dwelling on this development is unrealistic.  In his household he has 4 people using four cars because there is no alternative. The Green Issues website states that 1.5 cars per dwelling relates more to an urban environment where there are effective transport links or local facilities are within walking or cycling distance.

o                    Similar developments in Ridgewood have cars parked everywhere because there is no provision for them. 

o                    The proposed density of this development is a lot higher than the average density in Maresfield.  How did it come from 100 homes to 60 homes to 80 homes – did anyone ever keep track of the area that was allocated for this proposed development?

o                    He would like to be sure that what was done with regard to housing allocation on this site was both safe and correct.

Cllr Street:

o                    The draft plan for the LDF states that Maresfield is designated a medium sized village ready for development in terms of housing, job creation and other services.  The LDF is currently at a very nascent stage and will be discussed in greater detail over the next 12 months or so.

o                    The application is premature.  80 houses is a significant number for Maresfield particularly in advance of the completion of the LDF process which will be a comprehensive plan giving an idea as to what is planned not only for Maresfield but also for surrounding area.  It may well be that in twelve months time this application will make sense.

Mrs Pat Kennedy:

o                    Whereas Mick Oldham said the green space would be left open, he is no longer with WDC therefore it would be good to ensure that one of the conditions designates the rest of the field as an open space for the village i.e. it would be outside the development boundary.  Similar assurances should also be sought for the land between the development and the bypass i.e. behind the Bowls Centre.

o                    Suggested conditions to be placed on an approval by WDC:

§         Subject to suitable and safe pedestrian access being achieved for children to reach the school.

§         Until suitable traffic calming measure are achieved

§         Adequate parking provision for a minimum of two cars on the development itself

§         Designate upper church field as open space

The following points were also noted:

• A&E and maternity units are already threatened by closure and an already inadequate provision of services will be exacerbated by additional housing
• It is essential that issues such as employment for the next 20-50 years are considered. Shops, offices, sports facilities; is there an overall plan for our population?
• With the additional traffic that this development and the waste site will generate, together with natural increases in traffic, the whole area will become overwhelmed by traffic in five or ten years time
• How can the village know what it wants now in terms of benefits and mitigation when it doesn’t know what the long term overall plan is
• The housing density for this development is 30 houses per hectare.
• Persimmon are acquiring 7.6 hectares but building on only 6.5 hectares.  The remainder is open space within the development
• Hearsay suggests that the developer is paying £998,000 per acre for the land.
• Whilst we believe that the green space behind the church has been secured, this is not actually in the planning application and therefore there are no guarantees that it won’t be built on in the future.
• Persimmon have previously stated that they are only committed to making provisions for those issues which are as an immediate result of the development
• The application is expected to go to Wealden Planning Committee on Thursday 12^th July 2007.

The Chairman closed the public session.

The majority of the public left the meeting.

1278.      To approve apologies for absence and to note other non-attendance.

Cllr W King, DCllr M Hoy, CCllr T Reid, CCllr F Whetstone

1279.      Declarations of interest

Cllr Mrs Val Taylor as resident in close proximity to the site and member of the Maresfield Conservation Group.  Cllr Ogden as a member of the Maresfield Conservation Group and Cllr Gutteridge as a member of the Maresfield Conservation Group.

1280.      To agree a recommendation to Wealden District Council on the following application:

Application No:    WD/20070526/MAO

Applicant:             Persimmon Homes (South East) Ltd

Location:              Land at Park Farm, Maresfield

Description:         Application for outline planning permission for the erection of 80 dwellings including demolition of existing buildings and associated works.

Response date:  14/06/2007

The following points were noted in discussion:

o          It may be appropriate for the Parish Council to suggest that a decision on this application is deferred until the finalisation of the LDF i.e. not say “no per se” just “not now”

o          If these 80 houses are built now, when the LDF is finalised in 2 or 3 years time Maresfield will still be a medium sized village which could end up with even more houses being built

o          There will not be enough secondary school places in Uckfield to cater for all the local development in the near future (see Cllr King’s note as circulated prior to the meeting)

o          Concerns relating to transport, traffic and employment will be included in the LDF

o          Cllr Galley stated that he is firmly opposed to this application.  It is not just a Maresfield issue but has a much wider impact.  Development at the Grampian site is already going ahead.  The infrastructure is not adequate for the level of housing proposed i.e. we don’t have the roads, water, sewage or education systems to support all this future development. 

o          The proposed Persimmon development will radically change the nature of the village of Maresfield and bring with it additional road safety issues.

o          The outcome in relation to the Barnlea application demonstrates that Council should not put its faith in the Un-Adopted Local Plan

o          Persimmon will still need to come back for detailed planning if they receive a favourable decision on this application

Mrs Kennedy, Mr Wheeler and Mr Thompson left the meeting.

o          This application and any major application now ought to be in the LDF.

o          The conditions as outlined by both Mrs Kennedy and Maresfield Conservation Group were very much in line with each other and seem sensible

Fred Taylor left the meeting.

o          LDF will consider schooling, water, traffic, employment i.e. will take a look at what’s needed, what’s available and how we deal with any changes required

o          This site and development pre-dates the LDF

o          Whether this proposed development is part of the Un-adopted Local Plan or part of the LDF, there are issues about generation of traffic, safety issues for children, unavailability of health, inadequacy of schooling provisions.  Furthermore, water shortages have recently been a problem and although plans are in place to make improvements the effects will not be immediate.

Councillors Agreed to recommend Refusal noting the following:

o                    There are issues relating to the safe passage of children to Bonners School i.e. the route recommended by the developer is inaccessible for wheelchair users and mothers with prams etc. and exits onto the High Street on a very busy and potentially dangerous bend

o                    The density of the proposed development will completely change the character of Maresfield

o                    The proposed development will generate a great deal of additional traffic through the village of Maresfield

o                    Local health provisions are already stretched

o                    Secondary schooling provisions are inadequate (see attached)

o                    Water shortages – plans are in place but additional capacity will not be in place immediately.

Councillors feel that many of the issues and concerns relating to the existing shortcomings in infrastructure may well be addressed by the work to be carried out in the coming year on the Local Development Framework and that a deferment on determination of this application until such work has been carried out would be sensible.

However, should Wealden District Council be in favour of this application, the Parish Council firmly believes that the development should not be approved until such time as the following provisions are catered for and placed as conditions on the approval:

o                    Provision of a safe footpath / route to school for children

o                    Provision of sufficient parking for at least two cars per household on the development

o                    Provision of an effective traffic scheme for Batts Bridge Road, School Hill and for the subsequent impact on local minor lanes

o                    A written guarantee that the land behind the church will remain as green open space in perpetuity

o                    The Parish Council is to be present and play an active part at any meetings held by or between Wealden District Council, East Sussex County Council and the Developer relating to Section 106 Agreements.

1281.  Date of next meeting – 19^th June 2007 (Nutley)

FERA address to the meeting

I represent the members of the Field End Residents Association and I am here to ask you to endorse our opposition to the Persimmon outline planning application for Park Farm.

We have always objected to development of this site for several reasons mainly to do with access and open space and that it may be prejudicial to a development further south of Park Farm that will bring more benefit to this community in the way of design and accessibility, sustainability, public open space and permeability.

Park Farm was rejected for development under the 1998 Local Plan and the reasons for rejection have not changed since with the exception that there is a requirement from central government for more housing. We don’t dispute that there is a need and we are definitely not against housing development in Maresfield.

We have always been mindful of the possibility of a much larger allocation in Maresfield south of Park Farm on land that is in the hands of landowners that have no other wish for it.

It now appears under the emerging LDF options document that indeed we are right and the prospect of large development is real. We would not support the numbers that are envisaged but would support a scheme that designed out through traffic from the village, transfer of open space to the community, blocking further development on this site, and was of a quality design that enhanced the viability of the village and was sustainable and met local needs.

Whilst the Local Plan (non-statutory) allocates Park Farm for development it cannot be relied upon to produce the future housing requirements for WDC. The LDF on the other hand, when adopted will. The LDF runs from 2006-2026 and could include those sites already allocated it is therefore imperative that we make this objection now in favour of the allocation moving to the LDF.

Objecting to this outline application does not put us at odds with the Conservation Group who we wholeheartedly support. Nothing that we do now will prejudice our response to a full planning application if WDC in their wisdom pass this outline application. In those circumstances we will support the Maresfield Conservation Groups response.

We urge you to reject this outline planning application by Persimmon.

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 21.45.