Minutes of Meeting Held on 10Th September 2012 These Were Previously Circulated and Agreed As Being Correct
http://www.ldalc.webs.com/
LEWES DISTRICT ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL COUNCILS
Meeting on 8th April 2013 at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber, Lewes Town Hall
M I N U T E S Present: Don McBeth (Chair), Marina Bury (East Chiltington PC), Jenny Toomey (Hamsey) Rosemary Jeffery (Kingston PC), Cris Allen (Newick PC), Jackie Harrison-Hicks (Vice Chair) (Peacehaven TC), Steve St Clair, Quincy Whitaker, Gill Davies (Piddinghoe PC, Bob Peters and Martin Whitlock (Ringmer PC), Geoff Knight, Jane Miller, Paul Julian (South Heighton PC), Rob Mills (Westmeston PC), Diane Meadows (Secretary)
The Chairman welcomed everybody to the meeting, which had been postponed due to heavy snowfall on the original date in March.
1. Apologies for Absence Nick Lear and Andrew Peace (Barcombe PC), John Greenslate (Kingston PC), Jenny Smerdon (Newick PC), Mark Brown and Ian White (Seaford TC), Rob Mills (Westmeston PC).
2. Minutes of meeting held on 10th September 2012 These were previously circulated and agreed as being correct.
3. Matters arising (a) Localism of Council Tax Benefit Deferred.
(b) Fingerposts Deferred.
4. Newhaven Water Park Steve St Clair (Piddinghoe PC) presented a report on this matter (See Appendix 1 attached).
The presentation was followed by a time of discussion when members expressed their concerns.
1 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/
5. Neighbourhood Plans Martin Whitlock (Ringmer PC) spoke about Ringmer Neighbourhood Plan. (see Appendix 2 attached)
6. Lewes District Joint Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document The following was added to our previous response of December 2011:-
There is concern about development adjoining adjacent towns and villages such that the rural nature of development is lost as boundaries are eroded. This is particularly pertinent to two areas of the core strategy.
a) Edge of Haywards Heath (within Wivelsfield Parish)
b) Edge of Burgess Hill (within Wivelsfield Parish)
Both developments involving 210 properties would place an unnecessary burden upon Mid-Sussex District council, and could be seen as being contrary to the Duty to Cooperate, as defined in the Localism Act 2011.
7. Changes to governance for SACL SALC will become a Ltd company as from April 2013. The structure of this arrangement is shown in a diagram (See Appendix 4 attached). This item also covered the relationship of NALC with “Large Councils”, for which Sam Shippen the Clerk of Seaford Town Council gave us some interesting input.
8. Financial report and review of subscriptions The Treasurer circulated a report (copy attached – see Appendix 3) and reminded members there were still a few outstanding subscriptions for 2012. It was anticipated there would be a freeze on subscriptions until 2014.
9. Reports Some of the following had been covered in general discussion on topics above. As time had run out it is suggested that members go to the following websites for updates on the following:
(a) ESALC Executive committee meeting 8 th January 2013 http://www.dalc.webs.com/esalc_mins.htm
(b) SALC Joint Liaison Committee 21/01/2013 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/jlc.htm
(c) SALC Joint Liaison Committee 15/02/2013
2 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/
http://www.ldalc.webs.com/jlc.htm
(d) South East Region County Association Forum SERCAF 21/02/2013 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/sercaf.htm
(e) Lewes District Planning Users Group 04/03/2013 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/psug.htm
10. Local issues and matters raised by representatives None
11. Date and place of next meeting Agreed to consult representatives regarding preferred day of the week for meetings before arranging a date and venue.
Don McBeth Chair LDALC
3 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/
APPENDIX 1
PIDDINGHOE WATERPARK WORKING GROUP
We were invited by Round Table Entertainments to submit observations on the proposed Waterpark development before the matter goes out to full public consultation. We have been provided with very limited detail on the specific proposal and consequently our observations are submitted on a strictly preliminary basis and without prejudice to any future observations and/or objections that will be submitted in the planning process.
We are fully committed to supporting appropriate and sustainable development in Newhaven. We have yet to be convinced of either the sustainability or the regeneration benefits of the Waterpark and we await the public consultation before responding on those issues.
However, even with the limited information with which we have been provided, it is evident that the Waterpark would have a dramatic effect on Newhaven and the surrounding valley.
We now submit suggestions and observations that should ideally form part of the planning and design brief for the developer’s architect. Their purpose is to ensure that any development exists within its proposed location without an unacceptably large negative impact on the quality of life of existing residents and businesses, especially in the South Downs National Park and Lower Ouse Valley to Lewes and beyond.
1. Transport Strategy The huge projected increase in traffic is likely to have a highly significant impact on not just Newhaven and its immediate surroundings but also on neighbouring communities in the Lower Ouse Valley, South Downs National Park and along the A259 coastal route beyond Peacehaven and Seaford. The surrounding roads are already highly congested at peak times and regularly grind to a standstill in the event of an accident of the Swing Bridge opening. The developers intend to amend the Newhaven one-way sysem to create walking access to the Waterpark from town centre but final details will be available after the developers receive a report awaited from their Transport Consultant.
2. Site Location Many of the issues referred to below arise from the proposed sighting of the Waterpark on the west side of the river when the traffic is intended to access it from the East on the A26. We do not consider that the
4 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/
current proposal is the right site for the Waterpark and suggest that, if it is to proceed, it would be better sited on the North Quay or other sites such as the Parker Pen factory or the Eastside area.
The proposed site was designated a Site of Nature Conservation of Importance (SNCI) IN 1991 because it was assessed as a “varied site of very considerable wildlife importance” and “exceptionally rich and supporting several rare plants” – these include 17 vascular plant species which are considered to be rare or uncommon in East Sussex, some of which are also designated as “Nationally Scarce” by English Nature.
The brackish depressions on the site were also identified as “a rare habitat in East Sussex and of particular wildlife importance”. The proposed development on this site will therefore have a significant detrimental ecological and environmental impact.
3. Local Traffic Management If the Waterpark is to be sited on the west side of the river, we suggest that the development must ensure that no visitors to it are able to enter it from the C7 as this can only add traffic volume to an already highly congested ‘C’ road. We do not believe that signage would prevent this as users of satellite navigation are currently directed to Newhaven along the C7 from Kingston. We consider that in order to minimise the increase in car traffic on the C7 it is imperative that the link road from the A26 only goes to the Waterpark and does not link up with the C7. However, any prohibition of traffic approaching the Waterpark from the C7 should also include strict parking regulations that will prevent visitors leaving their vehicles on the C7 and proceeding to the Waterpark on foot.
In order to co-ordinate the shared concerns of other communities along the C7 in the Lower Ouse Valley, we are consulting parish councils (POLO) and other organisations who would be negatively affected by the increased traffic.
4. Site Access from A26 We are extremely concerned at the visual and noise impact that a static bridge crossing the River Ouse as part of the link road would create within the boundary of the SDNP. The visual impact, noise and light pollution that will arise from the bridge and lengthy approach roads (which we understand would require street lighting) would impact on the whole of the Lower Ouse valley and be hugely detrimental to the National Park and restrict possible future use of maritime traffic on the river. We suggest that serious consideration should be given to building a tunnel
5 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/
under the railway and River Ouse, rather than a bridge. The spoil from tunnel excavations could then be used to create banking for visual and acoustic screening along the north boundary of the Waterpark site. Dense landscaping including mature trees should also be used to minimise the noise and visual impact.
5. Offsite Parking We suggest that consideration should be given to all parking for the Waterpark to be provided on the North Quay with an opportunity to introduce more natural landscaping (the car park could also be sited underground if it was cleared by the developers of its contamination) and access be given to the Waterpark by way of a pedestrian and cycle bridge only. Other local parking sites, utilising redundant brownfield sites if possible, should also be investigated along with Park & Ride schemes.
6. Negative Architectural Environmental Impact In relation to minimising the detrimental impact of the Waterpark on the surrounding environment and South Downs National Park we make the following suggestions;
(i) All new buildings to be clad in non-reflective materials to avoid solar glare – which will be particularly significant for Piddinghoe, the Ouse Valley beyond and high ground on the South Downs National Park.
(ii) No windows, transparent or translucent surfaces facing north towards Piddinghoe and the Ouse Valley to avoid increased light pollution.
(iii) Height of domes or roofs within the Waterpark development to be restricted to height of the adjacent incinerator roof (27 metres).
(iv) Light and noise deadline should be at 8pm. No night-time illumination to create light pollution killing existing dark sky.
(v) All car parking at ground level to be fully landscaped and under cover to avoid solar glare to surrounding areas and high ground on the South Downs National park.
7. Rail and Public Transport Visitors The existing railway station (Newhaven Town) is in urgent need of upgrading and integrating with other services including buses, ferry and
6 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/
taxis to form a transport hub. This was part of the proposed Railway Quay development by Arrowcroft, but was recently refused planning consent. The Waterpark developer should be obliged to provide a new transport interchange under a Section 106 agreement to encourage the use of public transport and reduce traffic congestion. The expectation that half the visitors would arrive by train should be reflected in a substantial discount for those who arrive at the Waterpark with a train ticket.
8. Pedestrian Access Visitors arriving on foot are being encouraged to walk to the Waterpark from Newhaven Town Station (and bus, ferry and taxi points) via a new pedestrian route via Bridge Street in the existing Town Centre, then along a new riverside walk via what is currently the eastbound section of the A259 one-way system. The existing ESCC Depot would then form access to Robinson Road which the Developer is confident will be turned into a mixed use riverside development linking to the Waterpark beyond. The amended town centre traffic will oblige pedestrians to cross the river via the swing bridge before having to cross this already busy road, which will only become more congested if the project is completed. We would like the scheme to include a new pedestrian bridge over both the river and A259 road to create a safer and more pleasurable journey on foot under a Section 106 agreement.
9. Further Considerations As part of the public consultation process, we fully expect the following issues to be given rigorous attention.
The impact of:
• unprecedented levels of traffic on the A26 and its consequent effects on the A27 and A23, which are major arterial routs for this region
• disruption to local residents and businesses caused by traffic involved in the building works
• similarly, disruption caused by the work involved in the proposal to turn the A26 into a dual carriageway
• dramatically increased passenger numbers not only at Newhaven Town station where visitors will have to change trains to make onward journeys
7 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/
• the development failing. The local authorities should provide sustainable plans for the site to go beyond returning to its existing state or simply abandoning it, both of which will compound the problems caused for Newhaven by planning decisions made in the 1970s.
• greatly increased air pollution from traffic fumes and pant associated with the Waterpark
• implementation of a Utilities and Public Services strategy to not hinder or negatively affect the lives of existing local residents.
We fully expect that these issues will be informed by evidence-based transport research focussed on large developments involving major changes and pressures, and their effect on a locale’s infrastructure. We consider a risk assessment exercise to be completely appropriate and necessary.
8 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/
APPENDIX 2
RINGMER NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN If you are happy with your LPA's plans for your parish, as in their Core Strategy, and you trust them to permit only developments you approve of, no real point.
If you are very unhappy with your LPA's plans for your parish (e.g. you think they have allocated you far too many houses) this will probably not be the most successful way to oppose them.
But, if you think you know what your parish needs better than your LPA does; if you think you would be better than them at choosing the right development locations and the right types of housing for your village; if you think their Core Strategy doesn't work for your village; then an NP will enshrine your preferences, based on your local knowledge, in the planning law for your area.
What's involved?? A lot of hard work! All of this is available on the Ringmer 2030 website and is backed up by supporting evidence & appendices, http://www.tbds.org.uk/ringmercouncil/page6.html
Where are we now? TIMELINE · 2011 - Ringmer is chosen a frontrunner for NDP · Early 2011 - The planning stages started · Nov/Dec 2011 P First round Public Consultations on our vision, key principles, countryside, housing, employment, leisure facilities and infrastructure. · Feb 2012 - Exhibitions and collecting views · March 2012 P Drafting Committee formed and continues to work on NDP draft reporting to Council throughout 2012 P including council seminars and progress reports a council meetings. Also meetings with LDC and developers throughout this period. · Jan/Feb 2013 - We have a draft NDP. Further public meetings/seminars on planning for Ringmer 2030 at which public had the opportunity to ask questions and complete questionnaires · "What do you think" P Public Consultation ended 8th March 2013 · March 2013 P public responses analysed
9 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/
Where next? Discussions with Housing Developers Provision of Social and Leisure facilities Discussions with Infrastructure providers Review of Draft NDP and its policies Create SE/SEA Create Consultation Statement Relationship of NDP timetable to Core Strategy timetable Submission and Formal Consultation period Examination and Adoption
Decision Time! Our last public consultation on 20th February 2013 was attended by 123 members of the public, including 7 Parish councillors and 13 people identified as having an interest in promoting land for development. After a presentation by the Parish Council and input from some of the persons with an interest in development we asked those present to complete a WHAT DO YOU THINK questionnaire.
When does it END? We await the finalisation of LDC Core Strategy. At this time consultation period is about to end and it will then go through an inspection. There will be opposition
Until the LDC Core Strategy is finalised our Neighbourhood plan will remain a draft - or will it? · Do we have to wait until LDC Core strategy is approved to put our Neighbourhood Plan up for inspection. If it passes inspection we can then hold a referendum of Ringmer residents.
Who is it for? The future generations of Ringmer Our 4 key principles are what our Neighbourhood plan is about · Ringmer is, and should stay, a village · Ringmer should regain sustainability · Ringmer should be a balanced, healthy and inclusive community · Ringmer and the South Downs National Park
10 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/
APPENDIX 3 Lewes Association of Local Councils FINANCIAL STATEMENT APRIL 2013 Community Account Date Details Credit Debit Balance £ £ £ Balance Brought forward 1,500.22 6.8.12 Honorarium for sec 2011 300.00 1,250.22 10.7.12 Ditchling Unitarian Ch 20.00 1,230.22 13.7.12 Wivelsfield PC – sub 2011 20.00 1,250.22 6.8.12 SALC Grant 220.00 1,470.22 10.9.12 Hire of Lewes room 62.50 1,407.72 10.9.12 Hororarium for sec 2012 300.00 1,107.72 8.10.12 Ditchling PC – sub 2012 30.00 1,137.72 8.10.12 Newick PC – sub 2012 30.00 1,167.72 8.10.12 Lewes TC – sub 2012 50.00 1,217.72 8.10.12 Ringmer PC – sub 2012 30.00 1,247.72 8.10.12 Newhaven TC – sub 2012 50.00 1,297.72 8.10.12 Telscombe TC – sub 2012 50.00 1,347.72 8.10.12 Chailey PC – sub 2012 30.00 1,377.72 8.10.12 Barcombe PC – sub 2012 30.00 1,407.72 8.10.12 Falmer PC – sub 2012 20.00 1,427.72 8.10.12 Streat PM – sub 2012 5.00 1,432.72 27.10.12 Kingston PC – sub 2012 20.00 1,452.72 27.10.12 Plumpton PC – sub 2012 30.00 1,482.72 29.11.12 Piddinghoe PC – Sub 2012 20.00 1,502.72 29.11.12 Westmeston PC – Sub 2012 20.00 1,522.72 10.12.12 Peacehaven TC – hire 11.59 1,511.13 10.12.12 Secretary – expenses 11.32 1,499.81 20.3.13 Wivelsfield PC – Sub 2012 20.00 1,519,81 22.3.13 Peacehaven TC – Sub 2012 50.00 1,569.81 8.4.13 E Chiltington PC – Sub 2012 20.00 1,589.81 8.4.13 Hamsey PC – Sub 2012 20.00 1,609.81 8.4.13 Donation to LDC (hire) 20.00 1,589.81 Outstanding Subscriptions still awaited: Falmer Rodmell Seaford Business Premium Account Date Details Amount Balance £ £ 10.12.12 Balance carried forward £27.47
11 http://www.ldalc.webs.com/
APPENDIX 4
12