PRESENT: Cllr. North (in the chair), Cllrs. Bancroft, Bunyan, Fletcher, Hazlewood, Hemsted,
Holmes, Marley, Rook, Swann and Veitch


Members who had a personal or prejudicial interest, whether direct or indirect within the meaning
of Section 51 of the Local Government Act 2000, or a personal or prejudicial interest defined by the
Cranbrook & Sissinghurst Parish Council’s Code of Conduct, in any of the matters appearing on the
agenda were invited to declare that interest at this stage. Alternatively, personal interests can be
declared at the time when the specific item is being discussed, if a member wishes to speak on an
item in which they have a personal interest.

Cllr. North read out the above statement. No interests were declared.

234: Cllr. P. North proposed that the Minutes of the Meeting held on the 8th March be adopted as
a true record. Cllr. Marley pointed out a typing error under item 23, which was amended. This was
then seconded by Cllr. Hazlewood and agreed.

Cllr. North then proposed that the Minutes of the Confidential Meeting held on the 8th March be
adopted as a true record. This was seconded by Cllr. Marley and agreed.

235: The Chairman reported that the offer of employment to Mrs. Michelle Rumble had been
withdrawn and the position of Deputy Clerk had been offered to Mrs Lorraine Ham who is better
known to Members as PCSO Lori Ham. Her official commencement date is the 1st June.

As agreed the Parish Poll with regard to free parking is being rolled out to all households from the
16th April. The pack includes frequently asked questions, a polling slip and a free post return
envelope. The count will be undertaken in early May and the results will be published. Reverend
Williams has agreed to invigilate.

Cllr. Marley welcomed the news that Lori Ham had taken up the position of Deputy Clerk. It is
good news.

236: The Chairman reminded Members that this issue had previously been discussed in March.
Howard Cox had brought to our attention that the Parish Council had failed to adhere to our
Standing Orders in that we had revisited a resolution within five months. The Standing Orders are
not statutory but to retain their integrity he has put aside the resolution made at the March meeting.
There was also a question of registering of interests from Members. Advice had been sought from
the Borough Monitoring Officer. The Clerk to read out the Monitoring Officer’s response. The
advice was that any Member who had signed the petition had no interests to declare. Cllr.
Hazlewood declared an interest at the March meeting when in fact he had no need to declare an
interest as a consequence he was deprived of his vote.

Cllr. North stated that this was not a public meeting to debate potential development of the
Rammell Field. It was a legally called Parish Council Meeting with a fixed agenda. We have been
consulted by Kent County Council and asked for our views on the Village Green Application which
has been submitted for the land known as The Rammell Field. We cannot allow the debate to
extend outside of the agenda item and under our Standing Orders, Members can direct their speech
to the question under discussion only. He explained that we are only a consultee and the decision
will be taken by either Kent County Council or The Inspectorate at Bristol.

Mr. Robin Holliday, Chairman of the Trustees of Rammell Field had kindly allowed the Parish
Council to view the conditions of the Trust. Cllrs. Fletcher and Rook met with him yesterday. The
Chairman reiterated that we are meeting tonight to debate the Village Green application only and
prior to any vote, parishioners will be invited to comment. He invited Cllr. Fletcher to give a brief
update on his meeting with Mr. Holliday.

Cllr. Fletcher stated that he had been given a copy of the indenture and an extract of the Minutes of
the Governors from 1922. There has been a lot of myth, reality, then myth again. For clarity the
wording is that it was “made over to the Governors if they would accept the same as “the
Cranbrook School War Memorial Playing Field” on the understanding that in the event of it at any
time being considered desirable to purchase a more suitable field, the present field could be sold
and the purchase money used for the purchase of another field which should in that event become
and be called or know as “the Cranbrook School War Memorial Playing Field”.The Governeors
expressed their willingness to accept the Playing Field on the conditions laid down and desired to
express their thanks to the Old Cranbrookian Association for the handsome and most acceptable gift
in lasting memory of the Boys of the School who had so gallantly served their Country and laid
down their lives in the Great War.”Cllr. Fletcher stated that it was quite clear that the School do
have the right to sell the Field but the money has to be used to purchase another War Memorial
Playing Field. There are ten Trustees for the Playing Field with four being Governors of the
School. The Field is not an asset of the School, it is an asset of the Trust. The Trustees are not
looking to sell the field at the moment. The Field was not left to the town of Cranbrook. The Field
was purchased by the Old Cranbrookians Association and then in 1922 it was made over to the

Cllr. North reminded Members that originally Rammell Field was not within the Limits to Build but
that this was changed in the latest version of the Adopted Local Plan 2006. The front part of the
Field is within the Conservation Area. The Borough SHLAAR Consultation identified that the
Rammell Field had been put forward as a site for development. An owner or a developer can put
forward a site for consideration. Cranbrook & Sissinghurst Parish Council has already made a
resolution under this Consultation and we have asked for the Rammell Field to be withdrawn – we
do not support housing development on Rammell Field. Cllr. North invited Cllr. Hazlewood to

Cllr. Hazlewood stated that originally the area that we know as Rammell Field was Cranbrook
Town Meadow and subsequently was used as an area of recreation and contemplation by both the
Town and Cranbrook School for many years. In 1914 an event took place that would change the
face of the world – World War 1. At the end of this war 22 million were killed or injured which
equated to 52% of all men mobilised, leaving many more families devastated for years to come,
some survivors never recovering. 57 of those killed were from Cranbrook School. In the Christmas
1919 copy of the Cranbrookian magazinet an appeal for subscriptions was circulated – it stated “we
now leave the issue of patriotism of all who wish well to Cranbrook School and who would do
something worthy to commemorate her soldier sons”. In the latter letter it ended with “will you
then, one and all send your subscriptions as soon as possible to the treasurer of the fund for the
honour of the school, as well as for the worthiness of the cause, let them be as big as you can
possibly make them. Subscription lists will be published from time to time in the magazine.”

By 1920 sufficient funds were available and the purchase of Rammell Field was made and with the
balance of the fund, a double gate was put into the corner nearest the school and a flag pole was
erected. A memorial board was produced with a board placed below which reads “with the funds
subscribed for this Memorial a Playing Field was purchased for the use of the School in perpetuity.
Incidentally, these boards are placed out of sight within the School. Evidently the School maintain
that under the terms of the deed, the Field can be sold provided another field is designated as the
war memorial field. He felt sure that this interpretation was correct. However, in 1946 an opinion
of Counsel was sought and that stated that this was not in corporate name but trustees. Special trust
for use as a playing field. Proceeds application for same purpose and not for general purposes of
the School. He questioned what the advantage to the School would be to sell for a lot of money
only to leave the balance of funds after acquiring another field in a trust account. He also
questioned the fact that if money was raised for a specific purpose i.e. the national arboretum
recently completed, would they have given so freely if it could be knocked down in later years to
build houses. Should Cranbrook War Memorial be flattened for development, how about clearing
away the Cenotaph in London and moving it to some backwater? It would be unthinkable for any
of these to be considered and rightly so. This could apply to thousands of other sites and memorials
across the country.

Cllr. Hazlewood then referred to the main question of Village Green status. As to is uses by
individuals other than the School, many Cranbrook residents will swear that they as children and
their children played on the Field without obtaining permission because no sign was put up telling
them they could not. A sign was put up on the 21st September 2011 and it was locked but this was
only done when it was discovered by the School that an application for Village Green status had
been submitted. He very much doubted that since 1922 that the School received requests to use the
Field on all these occasions. Some properties have gates into the Field and have used them, in some
cases in excess of 40 years; nobody stopped them. In 2002 it was established by public meeting
that it was an important open space designated as such on CR08 Cranbrook Green Infrastructure
Assets Map, in the same manner as St. Dunstans Church, the Churchyard, the Museum , Museum
Pond along with the stream that feeds it. What is different now? The approach to the Town from
both the High Street and from Tenterden is extremely attractive and opens up a gateway into this
important historic and beautiful town of which we are all proud, receiving hundreds if not thousands
of visitors a year. Houses will have to be built in Cranbrook but not at the expense of losing this
very important site. Why for example was the majority of the Field removed from the Conservation
Area? The purpose of the Village Green Application is to uphold the memory of those it was
bought for by public subscription and to maintain the attractiveness of our Town. Cranbrook is
very proud in its traditions of remembering the fallen in all wars as the Remembrance day service
and parade confirm, in which Cranbrook School and especially the Cranbrook Cadet Force play an
important part.

Cllr. Hazlewood stated that in conclusion if it is felt that the only way to protect this Field is to try
and obtain Village Green status our position as parish councillors is to support the community. Last
May we were duly elected to this position and he received over 500 votes from parishioners who
felt that he would listen to and support the needs and future of the Parish. They trusted me and he
suggested that all councillors should listen to those same voices, 1,700 and growing who wish to
keep the spirit alive of those young men who made the biggest sacrifice, not just for the school, but
for this nation as a whole. The Village Green Application may fail but he felt that most of the
Town will continue to fight to protect this site unless the School see reason and realise that you
cannot put a price on someone’s life and trample over their memories. If you could go back and ask
all those who donated and explained that “thanks for your money but in future years we are going to
build on these memories”. He felt sure that they would say no you are not.

The Chairman then invited comments from other Members. Cllr. Marley stated that the Kent
County Council had asked the Parish Council to give its opinion on the Village Green Application –
we are consultees. She had received an e mail from the Rammell Mews Association which she felt
was rather bullying and a courteous letter from the Chairman of the School Governors. Lawyers
will decide the outcome of the application. Under the Commons Act 2006 and as confirmed by
Miss McNear of Kent County Council, the use must be as of right and she had concerns over this

Cllr. Swann stated that in order for him to make a decision he would like to know how making the
field a Village Green would change the way the field is used and maintained. If the application
fails, as the field is in private ownership, would it still be available for use by the community. If the
Village Green Application succeeds, who would look after the field and maintain it. Many other
areas have been the subject of applications including Newhaven beach. Until he knew all the
answers he could not vote.

Cllr. Holmes stated that despite the fact that we had received more information and advice from the
Trustees and in spite of what Cllr. Fletcher had relayed, he felt that assurance still needed to be
given and therefore he continued to support the parishioners in their aims for a village green
application. He stated that we would be failing in our duty if we do not support the parishioners.

Cllr. MacLachlan stated that at the initial meeting in March there was not much information and
much confusion. He felt that the application was unlikely to succeed but Members were now better
advised rather than abstain from voting.

Cllr. Rook stated that he had listened to all the arguments; he was not a legal beagle. We were
elected representatives of the community and they want this as a village green. The legal argument
is for the legal beagles to decide – it is not our decision. We should support the local people who
obviously and passionately want it registered as a village green. Cllr. Hazlewood agreed with Cllr.
Rook in that the issue is to support the voters and not get into the legalities, if it succeeds we keep
the green field as a memorial and a valuable asset to the town’s appearance.

Cllr. Fletcher stated that this is a tough decision. We do not have a good experience with village
green applications. It is perceived as a “nimbi’s” charter to stop development. The application on
the Long Field stopped older persons units and affordable housing for local people. It can be a
dangerous weapon which when wielded can be used maliciously. There is a huge raft of planning
processes which development applications have to go through and we should have a vision to the
future and not a gut reaction to community outbursts. Nobody likes a green field built on but he
suggested that Members should think very carefully about the development of Cranbrook. He
referred to the indenture and minutes which he read out earlier and it was clear that they were ready
for the Field to be moved. With regard to housing, is this really a green field site within the law?
There is going to be development in Cranbrook.

Cllr. Swann suggested that we had to be careful; we have already agreed to support the residents in
their aim to register Rammell Field as a Village Green. Cllr. Marley spoke up for the Trustees who
were given a Charter and have looked after the Field for ninety years.

Cllr. Hazlewood stated that he did not agree with the comment from Cllr. Fletcher in that people
were aware that the Field would be moved and he disputed the comment “nimbyism” – 1,700
people have signed a petition and certainly they do not all live round the green field – Rammell

The Chairman then closed the meeting to enable all parties to be involved in the debate prior to a
formal vote being taken by the Parish Council.

Howard Cox spoke on behalf of the Rammell Mews Residents Association/Save Rammell Field:
   Loss of community spaces and services in the Town
   War Memorial Field and Recreation Field
   Field has been used for community events
   Parishioners have not been stopped accessing the Field until quite recently
   Attractive gateway from the East
   Disappointed at how the parish councillors voted at the March meeting
   Chair of Trustees had stated that they were not looking at selling the field for development;
      but had submitted land in the planning process for 300 homes in Cranbrook
   Implored the Parish Council to revisit to retain the Field as a memorial/sports and playing

Robin Holliday – Chairman of Trustees:
    Trustees had a clear responsibility to the Trust
    The original appeal for funding was within the School
    Initial plan was to build a chapel or additional bursaries for the School but decision was
      taken to provide a much needed playing field for school use
    They could consider providing a better memorial with something which was of use to the
    Took exception to comment regarding destruction of war memorials; there could be
      circumstances that arise to give the children in the school a better facility
    If this becomes a Village Green it will remove all possibility for the Trustees to do
      something better
    It is a memorial for the School and the dead of the School.
    Urged people who signed the petition to think about a “living” memorial
    Have the community used the field “as of right”
    The School is an integral part of the community

Parishioner:   Would they sell it to us?

Sean Holden – Tunbridge Wells Borough Councillor:
    1,700 people had signed a petition.
    He would like the Parish Council to support the parishioners and leave the legal opinion to
      others to decide
    Like to see the Field retained as a special kind of memory – feelings run high – used Wooten
      Bassett as an example – those boys that lost their lives deserve to be remembered and
      keeping the Field preserves that memory
    He hoped that the Parish Council will support the application for Village Green status and
      that the Trustees see the feelings of the Town. Keep the Field as a green space and as it has
      always been used. He hoped that the Trustees will see the feeling of the people of
      Cranbrook who care passionately about the Field

Angela Daley – Headteacher, Cranbrook School:
    She is not a Trustee
    If it becomes a village green it will no longer be the Cranbrook School Playing Field – if
      people are able to exercise their dogs it will not be able to be used for sport
    If it becomes a village green the original intention will be lost
    Trustees are volunteers who act for the good of the school, that needs to be recognised, they
      are not money grabbing tyrants
    “if” they were to sell the Field it would be for the good of the children of the school
    Wounded by comment – not part of the community – educate children, science day, the
      theatre, arts, church tower appeal – they do their bit
Parishioner: School should be part of the community, the school is only in being because of the
town – there is no more suitable field other than the Rammell. It would only be sold for financial
gain. Have you another field in mind which is better situated than Rammell – all other land is
owned by the school

Joy Temple: Cares passionately about Cranbrook, urged the Council to represent the residents of
the town, leave the result of the application to the lawyers.

Betty Girling: Lived in Cranbrook 58 years – it is a memorial field, soldiers are still fighting and
we should remember that it was given for those soldiers who have fought and are still fighting.

Peter Jempson:
     Born in Cranbrook in 1935, went to Cranbrook School as a day boy
     Wilkes Field in Waterloo Road was compulsorily purchased to build new boarding houses
        for girls
     Old Cranbrookians – not all were boarders, some were from the community
     Queens Theatre – money given by precept payers i.e. Borough funds – the school allow a
        programme of so many events for community
     Would they hand over Rammell Field to the community in light of the Wilkes Field
        compulsory purchase

Derek Smith: Lived here since 1965 – Cranbrook an excellent school, felt that there needed to be a
change of spirit at the heart of the school to come to a place of mutual openness and respect to
overcome the “us and them” attitude.

Petula Covell: Lived here 12 years, worried about the division in the community, happened in her
last village, leave the field as it is and use it as it has been used for the last hundred years. If the
school needs to raise funds offer the field to the community who might be happy to pay something.
Should remain as open space.

Nick Vinall: Worked at School, lives opposite the Field – relaxed about the whole issue, the
trustees have to purchase a replacement field, and there are no suitable fields around. He has
watched and listened to the events of the Field and been impressed with the organisation. The
Council has to make a decision on whether they support or not after listening to the facts. What are
downsides? - costs of maintaining a village green?

Mike McMinnies:         Born in Cranbrook, went to Cranbrook School, can remember standing in
Frythe Way and the Field he knew as Old Big Side and watching the Cranbrook Town Football
Club playing on the Field. Now the Club has nowhere to play. He and his brother started the
Cranbrook Rugby Football Club and the previous headmaster of the school had allowed matched to
be played on the Field free of charge, now the Club had to pay quite a lot of money. The school
should be more generous. He had heard said that if there wasn’t a school, Cranbrook wouldn’t exist
– it is the other way round.

The Chairman then re-opened the meeting, stating that we had recently been asked our opinion on
three village green applications – one at the top of the High Street which was made to try to prevent
the demolition of the former council offices, which we did not support; one on the Long Field
which has stalled the development of local needs housing and elderly person’s units, again which
we did not support and now the application for Rammell Field which out of the three applications is
for a Field which has been used for social events within the Town. This application is an attempt to
retain the field for community events and as a green space. It is not for us to consider legal issues,
this will be for either Kent County Council or the Inspectorate at Bristol. We should however, not
remain neutral or abstain from voting.
Cllr. Hazlewood requested that the vote be recorded as per our Standing Orders.

The Chairman, Cllr. North proposed that:-

Cranbrook and Sissinghurst Parish Council support the Village Green Application on land
known as Rammell Field, Cranbrook.

This was seconded by Cllr. Rook. Councillors voting for the motion were:-
Cllrs. Bunyan, Goodchild, Hazlewood, Hemsted, Holdom, Holmes, North, Rook and Veitch

Votes against were:-
Cllrs. Bancroft, Fletcher, macLachlan, Marley and Swann

The motion was therefore carried.

237: Cllr. Swann referred to the report of the meeting held on the 8th March which he had
reported verbally at the last meeting. He proposed that the report be adopted. This was seconded by
Cllr. Bunyan and agreed.

Cllr. Swann gave a verbal report of the meeting which had been held this evening, prior to Full
Council. Members had approved payments made prior to end of year and payments for April. On
the next agenda will be an item on how to get councillors more involved to equal up some of the
workload. Responding to a question from Cllr. Marley, Cllr. Swann explained that the overspend
was due to a grant regarding the skate park which had come in the previous year’s figures. He also
confirmed that amount of reserves figures to Cllr. Fletcher.

238: Cllr. Bunyan reported that there had been two meetings and the minutes had been circulated.
She was please to be able to inform Members that under the National Planning Policy that windfalls
will be allowed and the Borough will now be well on the way to get their quota built. Cllr. Rook
informed Members that he had been lobbied regarding an application for Southlands. Cllr. Bunyan
confirmed that we had made a Neutral recommendation as we felt that it was for the expertise of the
Highways department. Cllr. Marley stated that a full discussion had taken place prior to reaching
the recommendation.

239: Cllr. Hemsted referred to the report of the meeting held on the 3rd April and specifically
mentioned the request from the Sissinghurst Parochial Council for the Parish Council to take
responsibility for the War Memorial within the Churchyard. We had agreed to take this on and he
felt that the costs would be minimal. A quote was accepted for a new fence alongside the Jockey
Lane Car Park boundary of St. Dunstan’s Churchyard. Filming had taken place at Golford
Cemetery recently in connection with a local family. We have been told that it should be screened
in October. The paths have been re-laid in Sissinghurst. With regard to Angley Cottage, there is
still a condensation problem and we have accepted a quote for a heat recovery fan system which
will take out the heat and dampness and then return the heat without the damp. It was agreed to
accept a quote for a new floor for the Vestry Hall. Various options were considered but it was
agreed to accept the more expensive quote for solid wood flooring rather than engineered flooring,
at it could then be sanded should the need arise in the future. He then invited questions.

Cllr. Marley enquired whether the tenants of Angley Cottage should have their rent reduced whilst
we overcome the condensation problems. Cllr. Bunyan clarified that the problem only really arose
in the cold spell and we have jumped in quickly to solve the issue. The rent is already very

Cllr. Holmes stated that we had spent a great deal of money on the Cottage and asked whether this
additional outlay hinders the repayment back to the Parish Council on the refurbishment works.
Cllr. Swann responded that the Cottage belongs to the Trust and we manage it on behalf of the
Trust. We will be transferring monies from the Trust to the Parish Council. Cllr. Bunyan informed
Members that there were still monies put aside from the refurbishment works which had come in
lower than originally thought. Cllr. North congratulated the tenants on all their hard work in getting
the garden in order.

Cllr. Hemsted proposed that the report be adopted. This was seconded by Cllr. Bancroft and

240: Cllr. Holmes referred to the report of the meeting held on the 27th March and invited Cllr.
Fletcher to give an update on Broadband. Cllr. Fletcher stated that he had attended a meeting with
Kent County Council and three other successful bid areas. He would be attending a meeting in
London with Defra. Cllr. North thanked Cllr. Fletcher who had been very successful on our behalf
firstly with the Seeda funding and now on the Broadband project. Cllr. Fletcher clarified a technical
term in the Minutes to Cllr. Bunyan and he confirmed to Cllr. Rook that where the money was to be
spent would be discussed at the next round of meetings. Cllr. Holmes responding to a question from
Cllr. Bunyan confirmed that would be six allotments at Sissinghurst Castle – we were only acting as
brokers. He proposed that the report be adopted. This was seconded by Cllr. Swann and agreed.

241: Cllr. Rook referred to the report of the meeting held on the 13th March when there had been
a presentation by Earl Bourne and Susan Laporte from Kent Highways. It was made quite clear to
us that Kent Highways would not be able to fund any projects but that there was a Members
Highway Fund held by Cllr. Roger Manning. There was a possibility of a lengthsman which would
be jointly funding by KCC/TWBC and the Parish. Cllr. Swann proposed that the report be adopted.
This was seconded by Cllr. Bancroft and agreed. Cllr. Manning and Steven Noad had been looking
at the alternatives to the speed humps and this was looking a bit more positive. Pedestrian safety in
Stone Street had been discussed and Mr. Bourne agreed to look at giving us alternatives and costs.
The Government had suggested that there should be a 20 mph speed limit outside of all schools so
Angley and Sissinghurst may benefit from this. The “green” footpath to continue to Golford
Cemetery had been discussed but the costs involved were huge as the ditch would have to be piped.
Kent Highways had no funds for this type of project. The annual litter pick was on the 21st April –
Cllr. Holdom was the organiser. Cllr. Rook invited questions.

Cllr. Swann reminded Members that the launch for the new footpath pack was on the 14th April and
he tabled a sample of the pack. Cllr. Hemsted informed Members that St. George’s Institute was
due to be decorated by HMP Blantyre House, they had last painted the Institute fifteen years ago.
Cllr. Rook reported that Members of his Committee should be aware that he had learnt this evening
at Policy and Resources that the precept for car parking had been allocated to the Environmental
Management Committee to oversee. Cllr. Bancroft was pleased to report that the salt spreader for
Sissinghurst had arrived and would be stored in St. George’s Institute. A grit bin would be placed
near to the Jubilee Field. She mentioned the all night burning of the street lights at the new
primary school. The Clerk confirmed that these were County lights. Cllr. Bunyan asked whether
there was to be a litter pick in Sissinghurst. Cllr. Veitch informed Cllr. Rook that she would like to
join the Environmental Management Committee now that car parking came within its remit. Cllr.
Marley referred to the paperwork from Jacobs regarding speed limits and Cllr. North suggested that
this should be raised at the next Committee meeting.

Cllr. Rook proposed that the report of the meeting held on the 13th March be adopted, this was
seconded by Cllr. Bancroft and agreed.

242: Cllr. Bunyan referred to the minutes of the meeting held on the 28th March and stated that
the Borough Council had now been given £18,000 to undertake a feasibility study on the
Providence Chapel. She pointed out comments regarding the planning applications for Southlands
and the Cramp Institute. Cllr. Swann responding to a comment from Cllr. Fletcher confirmed that
CCAAC were a committee of the Borough Council and does a good job. Cllr. Hazlewood did not
agree with the comments made by CCAAC on the Cramp Institute. Cllr. Bancroft stated that she
had not seen any works being carried out on The Bull. Cllr. Bunyan informed Members that she
had been told that a tenant had been selected and the Conservation Officer had visited and
confirmed that nothing untoward in respect of any works had occurred.

243: Cllr. Fletcher reported that the next meeting is on the 29th May.

244: Cllr. Rook stated that television reception is appalling and he had been told that the power is
split between analytical and digital, would this change at the switchover. Cllr. Fletcher, who was an
employee of Action with Rural Communities in Kent confirmed that indeed this would improve.
Cllr. Bunyan suggested that Cllr. Fletcher might like to give a talk on the digital switchover at the
Annual Parish Meeting.

245: The Clerk had nothing to report.

246: All Members had been invited by Revd Allan Norris to a special St. George’s Day Service
on Sunday 22nd April at 11 am. A letter had been received from Sissinghurst Cricket Club
thanking the Parish Council for the Section 137 funding for the new net facility for local young
people to enjoy and be encouraged to take up the game of cricket. A letter had been received from
Tunbridge Wells & District CAB thanking the Parish Council for the Section 137 funding of £1,500
to be specifically related to their Cranbrook office.


247: Cllr. Swann informed Members that part of Angley Woods has been sold and areas have
been fenced off. There was public concern and the matter has been reported to the footpath officer
although it appears that the public rights of way have not been affected.

248: Cllr. Veitch reported that she had met recently with David Candlin and Emma Pell from the
Borough Council on the car parks and there was a list of items which required clarification. There
is a further meeting in two weeks time. Cllr. Swann asked whether it was in order for Members to
lobby with regard to taking over the car parks. Cllr. North suggested that as the matter had not been
debated by Full Council this would be best left to the Business Association.

249: Cllr. Holmes informed Members that there was very positive news about the Hop Pickers
Trail which had been successful with their Heritage Lottery Fund application. Thanks must be
afforded to Kent County Council, without them the project would not have got this far.

250: Cllr. Holdem confirmed that the litter picks would be held this Sunday in Cranbrook –
rendezvous at the recycling centre at 10 a m and next Sunday in Sissinghurst rendezvous at the
Jubilee Field at 10 a m.

251: Cllr. North stated that a new St. George’s flag will be delivered tomorrow which will be
flying on St. George’s Day 23rd April. He thanked all Members who had helped by putting letters
in envelopes regarding the Car Parking Poll. He also thanked Cllr. Rook who had carried out all the
printing in just three days as the deadline date had been altered. The poll envelopes will be
delivered as from next Monday.

252: Cllr. Sean Holden stated that he had really enjoyed the debate this evening on the Rammell
Field. He hoped to be re-elected in May and that he would still be our Borough Councillor.


To top