Ringmer Parish Council

Chairman: Cllr A R Peters

Parish Council Office, Village Hall, Lewes Road, Ringmer, East Sussex, BN8 5QH Telephone/Fax/Answerphone 01273 813242

Email: clerk@ringmerparishcouncil.fsnet.co.uk

Return to Ringmer Parish Council Website

Last Updated: 23 June 2003

Draft Ringmer Village Action Plan

This website is provided and maintained by Technical & Business Documentation Services (TBDS). For details of services they offer, visit their website at www.tbds.btinternet.co.uk/services

Action Points

NB This is not the final order. Amendments and editing still to be done.

Additional comments welcome

To palringmer@yahoo.co.uk

By 6.30pm Thursday 26^th June.

Contents

1. Library facilities RCC Rosemary Colebourn

2. Shops nca Shop keepers Association/Crowthorne Crafts

3. Advice/Information Centre Colin Brown SDCVS

4. Public Tennis courts John Kay

5. Cinema / film club nca HAS/RCA

6. Single parent households Duncan MacLean

7. Disabled facilities and access Warren Kingston

8. Anti-social behaviour Stuart Bean

9. Traffic - speeding/traffic calming RADAR Bryn Bridges

10.. Street parking John Kay

11. Traffic - cycle paths Rosemary Colebourne/John Kay

12. Alternatives to private car travel Alan Grindley

13. Broadband Rob Parsons

14. Listed buildings History Group

15. Footpaths and stiles Ramblers Barbara Cruttenden

16. Wildlife Conservation RCC Rosemary Colebourne

17. Tree Planting LDC Trevor Watson

18. Recycling LDC Trevor Watson

19. Young people’s needs / facilities Danielle Price

20. Housing - type and location John Kay

21. Improvements to A27. John Kay

22. Employment in Ringmer. John Kay

23. Doctors surgery John Kay

24. Harvard House Veronica Humphrey

nca = not currently available.

Action Plan 1. LIBRARY

1. The Issue or Problem

To encourage the village to be positive about the proposed re-siting of the library at the Community College. The major concern is the distance from the centre of the village for older residents.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

Questionnaire indicated a high level of more senior residents preferred the library to stay in the Village Hall, due to transport problems.

3. The Action

a) To gain up to date information from ESCC Education and library Service once merged from June 1, on funding and plans for Ringmer library provision.

b) T gain information on preferred opening hours and transport solutions.

c) To explore the idea of a voluntary team borrowing books for housebound residents.

4. How it will be tackled

a) Arrange a meeting with Library Service and Ringmer Community College

b) To explore transport ideas, costs and routes for a possible minibus pick-up service around the village to new library.

c) To research and obtain information on housebound residents who would value scheme and establish a team of volunteers, by contact with all senior citizen clubs, residential homes, and through Community newsletter, Parish news and local paper.

5. Who will do it

a) Ringmer Community College (Rosemary Colebourn)

b) Age Concern (Valerie King) and Ringmer Community College (RHC) only once a definite date is known

c) Age Concern (VK), Ringmer Community College (RHC)

6. When should it be done by

a)mid June 2003

b) dependent on outcome of a)

c) mid October 2003

7. Resource implications

a) None

b) Cost of driver, hire of bus/fuel

c) Minimal

Action Plan 2. SHOPS/SKILLS/CRAFTS

1. The Issue or Problem

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

3. The Action

4. How it will be tackled

5. Who will do it

6. When should it be done by

7. Resource implications

Action Plan 3. ADVICE/INFORMATION CENTRE

1. The Issue or Problem

Perceived lack of sufficient advice/information services in the village.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

30.9% positive response to provision of advice centre in the village form questionnaire

3. The Action

Identify current info/advice provision available from surrounding area (including Lewes)

Audit ability of current public areas to host new services

Survey advice providers to see what numbers from villages access their services and if they have any views on need for outreach provision

Consider role of ICT services in providing service

Review use of notice boards around village

4. How it will be tackled

Short questionnaire with background to existing providers – e.g. CAB, Age Concern, Care for Carers, health centre – for action points 1&3. Ask if able to provide outreach services if required.

Contact Library, Community College, Parish Council re space/cost to host possible provision – action point 2

Identify gaps where notice boards may be placed or were existing ones could be used more effectively – point 5

Provide one/some public ICT access point(s)

5. Who will do it

Parish Council/South Downs Council for Voluntary Service

Parish Council

Contact AiRS and/or Sussex Community Internet Project

6. When should it be done by

Within three months

Before end of term

Next six months

Within 6months

7. Resource implications

Possible cost of outreach services from voluntary sector groups

Cost of new notice boards

Cost of rental /overheads for hosting any provision

Cost of PC(s) and internet provision –plus cost of set up/support

Minor costs for survey(s) –stny/mail etc

Action Plan 4. PUBLIC TENNIS COURTS

1. The Issue or Problem

Lack of public tennis courts in Ringmer. There are at present a few courts in unimpressive

condition at Ringmer Community College, but the site they occupy is scheduled to be

developed.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

In the Village Survey (Q 11) residents were asked what additional sports facilities they would like to see in the village. Public tennis courts were supported by 111 respondents, by far the most popular response (compared to 44, 25 & 14 for the next three options).

3. The Action

Include provision for public tennis courts within the new recreational area planned on land east of Ringmer Community College.

4. How it will be tackled

(a) Present the case to Lewes District Council for the inclusion of tennis courts within the detailed plan for the new recreational area in the Lewes District Local Plan. Inform Lewes District Council that such provision is included in the Ringmer Action Plan.

(b) Inform Ringmer Community College of the support for provision of public tennis courts.

(c) Identify those who wish to use this provision, keep them informed about progress and plan for the operational management of the new facilities.

5. Who will do it

(a) Ringmer Parish Council

(b) Village plan consultative committee

6. When should it be done by

(a) & (b) On adoption of the Action Plan

7. Resource implications

Not known at present.

Action Plan 5. CINEMA/FILM CLUB

1. The Issue or Problem

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

3. The Action

4. How it will be tackled

5. Who will do it

6. When should it be done by

7. Resource implications

Action Plan 6. SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS

1. The Issue or Problem

Living in a village means that many of the ‘agencies’, facilities, and advice that Single Parents need to access, are only available through repeated travel into Lewes. Some advice and help is not even available to them there, i.e. Debt and Budgeting help.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

Within the past year people within Ringmer Baptist Church have been involved with 3 families needing help as detailed on the attached letter. There are many more families with whom we have no contact, but I suspect that the issues are common to many single parent families.

3. The Action

In conjunction with the Action Plan for an ADVICE CENTRE, conduct some more detailed research into the needs for advice on such aspects as Benefits assistance; debt advice; and ‘Advocacy’. Investigate urgently the possibility of re-introducing Utilities prepayment facility within the Village.

4. How it will be tackled

Sub group to meet with other Single Parent families, with involved agencies (Housing; Benefits agency; Social Services), and with the Advice Centre subgroup to assess need and resources that may be available. For example, would Lewes District Council Housing / Social Services / Benefit Agency be willing to man a desk one day a week as a trial?

5. Who will do it

Ringmer Parish Council with assistance from any who have some expertise in this area, including Ieuan Sherwood of AIRS. (There is a Debt Counselling Service in Burgess Hill which grew out of the great need to provide such advice. There used to be one in Lewes, but it closed some years ago.)

6. When should it be done by

Investigations and research to begin now.

7. Resource implications

Not known until more research undertaken and possible involvement from agencies investigated.

Action Plan 7. DISABLED FACILITIES AND ACCESS

1. The Issue or Problem

Disabled access and facilities in Ringmer.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

In question 15 of the Ringmer questionnaire 70 people responded that they were registered disabled. (It is now recognised that this was not a well worded question.)

A significant number of suggestions were put forward by respondents to the questionnaire as to how to improve the quality of life and allow fuller participation in village life for people with disabilities

3. The Action

To raise awareness in everyone living in, working in, or studying in, or visiting Ringmer (a) of the meaning of the term disability and (b) of access issues for disabled people.

To raise awareness of the responsibilities arising from (a) and (b) above as they apply to individuals, businesses and service providers.

To improve access within Ringmer for disabled people.

To establish and develop partnerships to fulfil these aims.

4. How it will be tackled

Initial discussions to be held with representatives from ESDA, Lewes Disabled People’s Forum, Lewes Local Access Group and Lewes District Council Access Officer.

Suggestions made in response to question 15 of the Ringmer Questionnaire should be included in these discussions.

An appropriate, staged and practical, but challenging and imaginative plan., will hopefully be developed from this.

At some stage it may be appropriate to identify how many people in Ringmer consider themselves to be disabled.

5. Who will do it

Preliminary discussions to be undertaken by Warren Kingston, with support from Ieuan Sherwood of AIRS.

ESDA, Lewes Disabled People’s Forum, Lewes Local Access Group and Lewes District Council Access Officer

Other individuals and organisations likely to be involved following the initial discussions.

6. When should it be done by

Initial discussions to take place over the summer of 2003.

Subsequent actions will be on going.

7. Resource implications

Initially relatively low - e.g. expenses for travelling to meetings.

Subsequently could be quite high, e.g. associated with possible actions involving improvements to width and surfacing of pavements, accessible toilet facilities and appropriately accessible doors.

Action Plan 8. ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

1. The Issue or Problem

Perceptions and actual incidences of anti-social behaviour.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

Q20-27

3. The Action

(a) To increase police presence and improve call centre response (already improved since December 2002).

(b) To improve communication between residents, police, college and other local organisations.

4. How it will be tackled

(a) Regular meetings between Cllr Stuart Bean, Parish Liaison Officer and senior police officers. (Started August 2002).

(b) Regular police surgery.

(d) Ringmer Police Week.

5. Who will do it

Ringmer Parish Council - Parish Liaison Officer - Stuart Bean

6. When should it be done by

Regular meetings between Cllr Stuart Bean, Parish Liaison Officer and senior police officers - on going.

Police surgery - monthly, commencing week 23^rd-27^th June 2003.

Public Meeting 27^th June 2003.

7. Resource implications

Not known to date.

Action Plan 9. TRAFFIC SPEEDING/CALMING

1. The Issue or Problem

Speeding traffic in Ringmer – implications for safety and quality of life (“living environment”).

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

Overwhelming response in the survey by RADAR (Ringmer Against Drivers Acting Recklessly) and a clear mandate in replies to the Village Plan Questionnaire.

3. The Action

Immediate. Encouragement of lawful behaviour.

Longer term. Physical calming or remedial measures.

4. How it will be tackled

Community Speed Watch (CSW) Scheme. “Think! Belt Up Slow Down (TBUSD) week.

Mini roundabouts and other devices, dedicated footpaths, cycle tracks, traffic lights, speed cameras, etc.

5. Who will do it

CSW pilot scheme began on May 13th 2003 and is coordinated by RADAR in conjunction with Sussex Police. TBUSD week will occur from 23rd – 28th June 2003 and is a community-involvement exercise coordinated by RPC and ESCC. Includes driver commitment pledges.

RPC and ESCC have so far agreed in principle on priority for more major calming and safety measures, including a controlled crossing by the Community College and the siting of mini roundabouts at Paygate Corner and Springett Avenue (subject to funding). Additional measures may need to be considered and prioritised in the light of experience with CSW and TBUSD (RADAR and RPC).

6. When should it be done by

Permanent “speed check area” signs are urgently needed to replace those on loan from Sussex Police. The success of CSW to a large extent depends on signs properly fixed and displayed at the entrances of the village at all times (the Police signs, which are attached by plastic ties, have to be removed after each speed check session to prevent theft. Also, since we have only two, they have to be moved around the village depending on the site of speed watch activity). The CSW pilot scheme will be evaluated by the Police and by RADAR in August and November 2003. If it is decided to continue the scheme it will be necessary for the village to purchase a laser speed gun. It would also be necessary that the pilot scheme be formally constituted as a permanent scheme.

When the effect of CSW has been analysed the necessity for other measures should be re-examined without prejudice to previous discussions.

7. Resource implications

(a) We need 6 CSW speed check area signs which have been costed at £98 + VAT (excluding fixing). It is possible that ESCC may be able to assist us by providing signs; the matter has been discussed with Keith Sinden. A speed gun could cost between £1,000 and £2,000 depending on the type and model, although it may be possible to reduce this figure.

(b) (I do not have figures for the miniroundabouts and the controlled crossing; the RPC should insert them here if known)

Action Plan 10. STREET PARKING

1. The Issue or Problem

On-street car parking has become a progressively more significant problem in Ringmer in recent years. Many older cottages and council and local estate housing built between the 1920s and 1950s have little or no on-site parking provision. Some 1960s estates have inadequate parking because the numbers of cars residents now possess is greater than was then anticipated. Most houses built between the 1970s and 2001 have adequate off-road parking. Ringmer life is highly car-dependent, with 90% of all households (including sheltered households) possessing a car and over 40% possessing two or more cars. A majority of households below retirement age possess two or more cars.Two factors threaten to exacerbate car parking problems in the village. The first is the application of PPG3 parking restrictions (1.2 cars per household) to planned new greenfield development. The first such development at Incinerator Close is a small scale development (10 houses) now being marketed at £265-£410K. Two further greenfield developments (75 houses and c.200 houses are envisaged in the recently approved Lewes District Local Plan. It is unlikely that many such households will confine themselves to a single car. The present on-road parking problems have occurred when only about 15% of village households cannot accommodate their vehicles off-road, but this proportion is set to increase, with a particular problem around the planned new greenfield developments. At the two main sites no acceptable on-road parking will be available nearby. The second factor is a Park & Ride scheme being considered by East Sussex County Council, which proposes to alleviate parking problems in Lewes by encouraging commuter cars to park in Ringmer (separated from Lewes by 3 miles of congested country roads) instead.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

Q 32 in the Village Survey shows that a high proportion of residents identified on-street parking in Ringmer. While problems were identified at over 30 locations, by far the most frequest responses were the area around the Shopping Precinct (175) and Harrisons Lane (146). Harrisons Lane is where Ringmer Primary School is located. Other residential roads with significant problems were Broyle Lane (49), Mill Road (30) & Anchor Field (18).

Q29 sought views about the proposed Park & Ride scheme. 27% of residents supported this but more than twice as many, 58%, were opposed.

3. The Action

(a) Attempt to minimise problems caused by on-street parking in areas where this is a particular problem, giving priority to the area around the Shopping Precinct and Harrisons Lane. A recently introduced scheme in Broyle Lane has led to some safety improvement.

(b) Attempt to minimise the parking problems that can be predicted to arise on and around the new greenfield developments.

4. How it will be tackled

(a) Shopping Precinct: By discussing with East Sussex County Council, Lewes District Council and Sussex Police whether the situation around the Shopping Precinct can be improved by provision of additional parking, imposition of parking restrictions and enforcement of existing restrictions. Harrisons Lane: By discussing with East Sussex County Council and householders whether the situation in Harrisons Lane can be alleviated by the means used with some success in Broyle Lane.

(b) By discussing parking provision with greenfield developers and/or by seeking to ensure that planning constraints include restricting new residents' car ownership to thise vehicles they can accommodate off-road and/or imposing and enforcing parking restrictions around the new developments.

(c) By persuading East Sussex County Council that the proposed Park & Ride scheme is a thoroughly Bad Idea that should not be pursued.

(a), (b) & (c) By informing relevant local councils of the relevant action points included in the Ringmer Action Plan.

5. Who will do it

(a) Ringmer Parish Council, Lewes District Council, East Sussex County Council, Sussex Police & local residents.

(b) Ringmer Parish Council, Local Councillors, Lewes District Council, East Sussex County Council & Sussex Police.

6. When should it be done by

(a) As soon as possible.

(b) When the relevant development proposals are brought forward.

7. Resource implications

a) Unknown, but potentially significant.

(b) Minimal.

Action Plan 11. CYCLE PATHS

1. The Issue or Problem

One possible means of meeting the objective of improving transport by means other than the private car within Ringmer and between Ringmer and Lewes would be by means of a network of cycle tracks. Many Ringmer people have bicycles and the distances involved are within easy bicycle range, but this mode of transport is used much less than it might be because of the danger, especially to children, of cycling in amongst other traffic on the busy B2192 and other local roads. There have also been complaints from older residents about the dangers caused by children cycling on pavements.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

When asked in the Village Survey (Q.27) 69% of respondents thought there should be dedicated cycle paths within the village and into Lewes, with only 19% opposed. East Sussex County Council have initiated a study of possible routes for a Ringmer-Lewes cycle link.

3. The Action

Support the development of a dedicated off-road cycle route between Ringmer and Lewes and future development of cycle routes within the parish.

4. How it will be tackled

JK By identifying a safe Ringmer-Lewes and intra-Ringmer cycle routes and seeking the necessary resources from 'planning gain' charged to future housing development. Priority should be given to the Ringmer-Lewes route.

RC To establish the current status of the plans with ESCC and LDC and if the likely cost prohibitive to support the provision through planning gain from new housing developments.

5. Who will do it

East Sussex County Council, Lewes District Council, Ringmer Parish Council, local councillors and Ringmer schools & colleges.

6. When should it be done by

JK As soon as possible.

RC By end of July/ appropriate phase of planning cycle

7. Resource implications

Probably substantial - initial estimates of the Ringmer-Lewes cycleway costs are in the range of £250-£500K. However, such a sum might not be an unrealistic charge against planning gain if planned development takes place.

Action Plan 12. ALTERNATIVES TO PRIVATE CAR TRAVEL

1. The Issue or Problem

To reduce number of car journeys to and from Ringmer.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

Q 33-37

3. The Action

To reduce number of car journeys to and from Ringmer.

4. How it will be tackled

(a) Recruit a computer literate volunteer.

(b) Build, maintain and update a register of regular car journeys to and from Ringmer.

(c) Build, maintain and update a register of volunteers to drive car or mini-bus for specific journeys not fully covered by public transport.

(d) Liaise with other agencies/suppliers.

5. Who will do it

Cllr Alan Grindley will try to find volunteer.

Cllr Alan Grindley will co-ordinate car sharing, lifts etc via email.

6. When should it be done by

On going.

7. Resource implications

Initially expenses for administration, e.g. ink, paper, phone use.

Later may incur use of car for under use, but hope to charge to break even.

Later still, if viable, business plan for community mini-bus for which Countryside Agency grants are available.

Action Plan 13. BROADBAND

1. The Issue or Problem

To achieve provision of broadband internet access for the Ringmer exchange so as to enable households, community groups and small businesses to benefit from faster and better value access to the benefits offered by the internet.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

Responses to question 44 of the Questionnaire showed 250 people (39.6%) thought we needed better communications technology e.g. broadband access in Ringmer.

99 people (15.7%) said we didn’t.

283 people (44.8%) said they did not know.

3. The Action

Get the exchange broadband enabled - this will benefit the bulk of residents who choose to use the service, but not those who live too far from the exchange.

Consider provision for those who live outside the exchange.

After the exchange is enabled, investigate ways of spreading the benefits.

4. How it will be tackled

A1 Publicity to increase the number of registrations, e.g. Action Plan Open Day, RCC parents' newsletter and the website. More ideas for publicity needed.

A2 Liaison with other interested bodies, including other parish councils and ESCC officer charged with increasing take up of broadband, Sally Meecham.

A3 Internal Ringmer communication, including use of an email list.

B Conduct a low level survey to identify people who might want to use broadband, but are too far from the exchange. This could be done by the parish council in conjunction with Ms Meecham, NFU, AIRS etc. If a need is found, it might then be practicable to discuss alternatives with BT.

C Once Ringmer is enabled, ensure that all who wish to take advantage of the service are able to. There may be a case for a community based internet café, which can be used at reasonable cost for, say, the elderly and those on low incomes to benefit. This could link in with the proposed advice centre (Action Point 3). Community groups may wish to run web pages to promote their own interests and services. A parish council or community based initiative to swap skills and services in this area could be set up.

5. Who will do it

Rob Parsons. Possible volunteers from those who have so far registered an interest.

Ringmer and other neighbouring Parish Councils.

Sally Meecham, ESCC officer charged with increasing take up of broadband.

6. When should it be done by

Initial discussions to take place by end of summer 2003.

Subsequent dead lines will depend upon the outcome of these.

7. Resource implications

Initially time and effort.

Depending on the out come of the initial discussions, more time together with money would be required.

Action Plan 14. LISTED BUILDINGS

1. The Issue or Problem

The present English Heritage list of Ringmer's listed buildings contains some errors of fact, and omits some buildings of merit. Some buildings that once appeared on the list appear to have been omitted from the latest list, apparently due to administrative error. Development pressures in Ringmer have led to the loss of several structurally sound and locally-important buildings as a means of developers increasing development density.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

It could not be claimed that this is an issue of pressing concern to residents in general - over 80% answered the question about this issue (Q 48) in the Village Survey with 'Don't know'. However, Ringmer has a thriving History Study Group which has now been active in the village for over 20 years. This Group discussed this issue in detail at its January 2003 meeting, attended by 75 members. Short presentations about 30 candidate buildings that appeared to meet the relevant criteria were made, and then each member was able to use 5 votes, positively or negatively, for any of the buildings on the list. Votes were overwhelmingly positive. Addition of three specific buildings to the list was supported by 60-70% of hose present. A further seven buildings attracted quite significant support. The remaining 20 buildings were not supported.

3. The Action

Update and correct the existing English Heritage list of Ringmer's listed buildings and propose the addition of the ten additional buildings identified above.

4. How it will be tackled

The case for protecting by listing the ten Ringmer buildings that attracted strong or significant support should be presented to English Heritage. Factual errors in the existing list should also be brought to their attention.

5. Who will do it

The Ringmer History Study Group

6. When should it be done by

In 2003

7. Resource implications

Minimal.

Action Plan 15. FOOTPATHS AND STILES

1. The Issue or Problem

Maintenance of footpaths and stiles.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

Regular users include Ringmer Ramblers, Ringmer Strollers, Mary Greenwood’s group plus individuals and other groups.

Q50 in Questionnaire.

3. The Action

A programme of monitoring and reporting has been actively in existance for 14 years (at the request of the Parish Council) by members of Ringmer Ramblers, including regulat reporting of state of paths, stiles and waymarkers via Parish Clerk to ESCC Rights of Way dept. Individuals also report direct to Parish Clerk.

4. How it will be tackled

Continue monitoring and reporting as above.

Regular attendance at relevant Parish Council meetings by representative from Ringmer Ramblers.

Meetings between RR representative, Parish Clerk and ESCC Rights of Way Parish Liaison Officer.

5. Who will do it

Local labour as agreed between Parish Clerk and ESCC Rights of Way dept, plus volunteers from Ringmer Ramblers for waymarking etc. Some work carried out by ESCC Rights of Way dept by agreement with Parish Clerk.

6. When should it be done by

Continual programme of maintenance and improvement within annual budget, agreed between Parish Clerk and ESCC Rights of Way dept.

7. Resource implications

Reliance on continuous co-operation between users, both individuals and groups, Parish Clerk and Council, local landowners and ESCC Rights of Way dept.

N.B. Parish footpaths and stiles have shown much improvement over that last 14 years as a direct result of the above activity. Village benefits from good co-operation between Ringmer Ramblers volunteers and Parish Clerk and from local land owners.

Action Plan 16. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

1. The Issue or Problem

Wild life in Ringmer.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

Almost 900 respondents to the Questionnaire said we should attempt to record the wildlife of Ringmer.

3. The Action

Identify sites of special interest or concern to ensure they are protected.

4. How it will be tackled

(a) Ringmer Community College Science Club and Environmental Science Groups to continue their audit of the Village Green and wider sites.

b) Investigate funding schemes for projects linked to schools/landowners

5. Who will do it

a) Ringmer Community College and Primary Partnership group, followed up by Parish Council.

b) As above with advice from Libby John and ESCC Ranger Service.

6. When should it be done by

a) on –going

b) Launch plan by October 2003

7. Resource implication

a) Some resources to record sites of information. Each site requiring attention will need to be individually costed for labour/fencing/ upkeep

b) To access grants

Action Plan 17. TREE PLANTING

1. The Issue or Problem

Tree planting around Ringmer.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

Ringmer Action Plan Survey question 51:- Please tick your box if you are in favour of tree planting in Ringmer. 1149 people said yes (85% +ve response)

3. The Action

Plant indigenous trees.

4. How it will be tackled

There are a series of preliminary steps,

Seek expert advice from agencies and public bodies

Survey the Parish in order to locate suitable sites for tree planting

Identification of the sort of trees that are suitable, based on location, soil type etc

Explore community ownership of the trees (one per household – adopt a tree) to facilitate ongoing maintenance

Link with Carbon neutrality issues related to climate change and relate this to household carbon production

Seek funding from a range of sources including Local authorities, householders, Countryside Commission etc.

5. Who will do it

Partnership between residents, Ringmer Community College, Sussex Wildlife Trust, Parish and District Council (Local Agenda 21 group) etc.

6. When should it be done by

Background work and networking to begin immediately, planting of trees once funding etc is in place – this will require a detailed project plan. Physical planting is usually carried out in Autumn or early Spring.

7. Resource implications

To be assessed once detail project plan is completed.

Action Plan 18. RECYCLING

1. The Issue or Problem

Recycling and Composting.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

Section 8 of the Ringmer Action Plan survey, responses to Q53 to Q57 and Q59 show active participation and enthusiasm for recycling. (Note that between the survey being distributed and the outcomes being compiled, Lewes DC has introduced a Kerbside collection scheme in Ringmer.)

3. The Action

(a) To increase participation in Kerbside recycling to at least 80% of households in Ringmer.

(b) To investigate the distribution of subsidised home composting bin through a local retail outlet or other outlet.

( c ) Inform the village of the recycling facilities at the College, including shredding facility and recycled note pads.

4. How it will be tackled

(a) and (b) Both the recycling and composting projects already operate on a successful publicity and promotion formula, this will be ‘fine tuned’ with the assistance of Ringmer Parish Council.

( c ) Write to Community groups and businesses, and to use village web sites, Community newsletter and parish news etc.

5. Who will do it

(Partnership between Furniture Now, Ringmer Parish Council, and Lewes District Council Recycling team.

(a) Kerbside Recycling will be the task of Furniture Now!, Lewes DC’s partner on the Kerbside project who have been contracted to serve rural areas and Lewes town. The drive to reach the exacting target of 80% will be assisted by Ringmer Parish Council

(b) The Composting issue will be facilitated through Lewes DC Recycling Officer, Julia Black, with the assistance of Ringmer Parish Council.

6. When should it be done by

(a) Kerbside monitoring of participation rate is ongoing.

(b) Compost bins – July 2003.

7. Resource implications

Existing budgets.

Action Plan 19. YOUNG PEOPLE’S NEEDS AND FACILITIES

1. The Issue or Problem

Lack of appropriate facilities for young people in the village.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

Young people’s anti-social behaviour which affects the community.

Ringmer questionnaire responses to Q 12, 60,YP Q3-6.

3. The Action

To provide a place for young people to meet.

4. How it will be tackled

Provide young people with a young people’s shelter.

5. Who will do it

Parish Council.

Youth Service.

Young People.

6. When should it be done by

Within the next twelve months.

7. Resource implications

Area to site shelter.

Funds to purchase and erect the shelter.

Action Plan 20. HOUSING - TYPE AND LOCATION

1. The Issue or Problem

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Ringmer has seen substantial development over the past few decades, but the area planned for development in the 1960s has now been filled. The recently approved Lewes District Local plan has approved development by 2006 of one central sports field (Caburn Field, 40 houses) and one greenfield site (Forges, 75). A further large greenfield site (Bishops Lane, c.200 houses) is in the frame for development in 2006-2011.

Fifteen years ago in the Village Appraisal residents supported building of affordable homes and sheltered housing but were strongly opposed to more executive homes. Nevertheless, subsequent development has included a high proportion of executive homes.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

The proposals for further greenfield development have been very contentious in Ringmer, because the proposals run contrary to PPG3. They have been strongly opposed by Ringmer Parish Council and local

action groups, and were responsible for the Lib-Dem controlling group losing two of their safest seats in May 2003. Only 8% of respondents to the Village Survey agreed with housing development on greenfield sites, with 92% wanting all further development to be within the existing village boundary.

When asked what type of housing they would like to see built, 52% wanted a mixture of types, 42% an emphasis on affordable housing, specifically including Housing Association homes, 26% more sheltered housing and 5% more executive homes.

These questions elicited a zero 'don't know' response.

3. The Action

(a) Ensure that development plans for those areas approved for new housing in the Local Plan includes a mixture of housing types, especially affordable housing that will remain affordable, and with a minimum of new executive homes.

(b) No further development should take place on Ringmer greenfield sites.

4. How it will be tackled

(a) & (b) By ensuring that Lewes District Council Planning Committee are made aware of Ringmer's strongly expressed opinions and are informed of the relevant Action Points in the Ringmer Action Plan.

5. Who will do it

(a) & (b) Ringmer Parish Council, Ringmer's Lewes District councillors, & Lewes District Council

6. When should it be done by

(a) As soon as the Action Plan is approved.

(b) When consideration is given to the future allocation of new housing in the Lewes District Local Plan.

7. Resource implications

(a) & (b) Minimal

Action Plan 21. IMPROVEMENTS TO A27

1. The Issue or Problem

Traffic congestion in Ringmer is substantially worsened by traffic diverting on to the B2124 &

B2192 through Ringmer to avoid queues on the unimproved section of the A27. A particular

cause of delay on the A27 is the level crossing at Beddingham. However, recent Dept of

Transport proposals to upgrade the A27 between Beddingham and Lewes are being opposed by

some local pressure groups.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

When asked in the Village Survey (Q 28) whether they supported upgrading this section of the A27, 89% of respondents were in favour and 5% against (6% had no opinion).

Excessive traffic on the B2192 is a major problem for Ringmer, and has led to the formation of an active local pressure group, RADAR. Heavty traffic, diverted from the A27 by congestion, has been a major target.

3. The Action

(a) Make it clear to the Dept of Transport, our constituency MP, and relevant councillors that Ringmer residents overwhelmingly support the proposal to upgrade this section of the A27.

(b) Counter arguments from local pressure groups against the proposal in local media.

4. How it will be tackled

(a) By informing Dept of Transport, our constituency MP, and relevant councillors of the outcome of the Village Survey.

(b) By monitoring local media and responding where necessary.

(c) By making representations in support of the proposal, and providing evidence of the negative impact of the status quo, in the event that a Public Enquiry is held.

5. Who will do it

Ringmer Parish Council and RADAR

6. When should it be done by

(a) On adoption of the Action Plan

(b) Ongoing

7. Resource implications

Minimal local resource implications

Action Plan 22. EMPLOYMENT IN RINGMER

1. The Issue or Problem

In the 1960s and 1970s the new housing development in Ringmer was largely of a dormitory nature, with most residents in employment commuting to Lewes or Brighton. A success in the last decade has been the increase in the number and diversity of commercial employment opportunities available within Ringmer. This has been achieved through more intensive use of established commercial sites on the edge of the village and the conversion of several redundant agricultural sites to commercial use, in line with Lewes District Council policy. The great majority of Ringmer businesses are small scale operations employing relatively small numbers of people, though many require highly specialised and skilled employees. However, some recent proposals have envisaged conversion of redundant agricultural premises served only by small lanes and/or in sensitive landscape areas. While wishing to preserve and increase local opportunities for employment, this must be balanced against the creation of excessive traffic demand away from main roads and by the requirement to avoid damage to the local landscape.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

In the Village Survey it proved difficult to survey employer opinion or needs as there is, as a result of the diverse and often specialised nature of local employment no local representative organisation (except for the Shopkeepers' Association representing those shops in the Shopping Precinct) nor even an available list of Ringmer businesses. Although 18% of respondents in the survey in paid employment worked within Ringmer (Q. 41), there also seemed limited public awareness of local business. While more favoured increasing local employment than were opposed (Q. 43), 'don't know' was the most frequent response to this query. The development of existing business sites was by far the most popular response to the open ended question about where businesses should be located, with only 11 responses supporting such developments in further redundant agricultural sites (Q. 45). However, when asked directly (Q.49) 53% favoured redundant farm buildings being converted for commercial purposes providing that this would not result in an excessive traffic increase and that the site had adequate access; that their existing appearance would be preserved, and that there would be no adverse environmental impact; and that they would not cause noise, smells or pollution. There was no support for additional business development on greenfield sites.

3. The Action

(a) Support further improvement in local employment opportunities, in so far as possible by retention and more intensive utilisation of the existing commercial sites. Further conversion of redundant agricultural buildings for commercial purposes should also be encouraged, subject to the safeguards above.

(b) Create and maintain a register of Ringmer businesses and seek to facilitate the development of a Ringmer employers' organisation to promote common interests.

4. How it will be tackled

(a) Through the planning system.

(b) Via a village website and by encouraging local employers to form an organisation.

5. Who will do it

(a) Ringmer Parish Council, Lewes District Council & councillors.

(b) Local employers in consultation with Ringmer Parish Council and a village website manager.

6. When should it be done by

(a) Ongoing

(b) In 2003-4

7. Resource implications

(a) Minimal

(b) Not yet ascertained

Action Plan 23. DOCTORS SURGERY

1. The Issue or Problem

Ringmer Surgery has insufficient capacity for local needs. It is sited at a very convenient central location (Anchor Field) but is too small and fully occupies its site. The present space is that

recommended for a single-doctor surgery but Ringmer's catchment area would justify a

3-doctor surgery. To accommodate this plus full practice provision of other services the

surgery would need to triple in size. At present many services are provided only in Lewes,

new residents are being advised to register in Lewes, yet further housing growth is planned

for the village. The practice wishes to expand its Ringmer provision and is supported by the

Primary Care Trust. However, the land needed for expansion to take place is owned by Lewes District Council. The present situation is resulting in unnecessary travel between Ringmer and Lewes, and causing inconvenience to all concerned.

2. Specific evidence of the importance of the issue to Ringmer People

When asked in the Village Survey about medical provision 49% expressed satsfaction, 35% no opinion and only 16% identified a need for service improvement. However this minority expressed views that strongly supported those of the practice itself. The main complaints were the need for more doctors in Ringmer and shorter waiting times. In all there were 52 comments requesting additional medical facilities at Ringmer, most of these being services that the practice itself would wish to provide here if space were available. A small number of respondents complained that they had not been allowed to register here but told they must register with the Lewes branch of the practice.

3. The Action

Support proposals by the GP practice to expand its service provision in Ringmer.

4. How it will be tackled

Encourage and assist Lewes District Council is revising the layout of their land and services adjacent to the Surgery at Anchor Field so as to make the necessary land available for the GP practice to expand its surgery. Inform Lewes District Council that improvements to the surgery are included in the Ringmer Action Plan.

5. Who will do it