Minutes of Meeting Held on 10Th September 2012 These Were Previously Circulated and Agreed As Being Correct
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.