41 homes at Land near Bishops Lane, Salehurst/Robertsbridge

What was proposed

The revised scheme proposed 41 homes, including 39% affordable housing, with landscaping, amenity space, parking and public open space.

“The revised proposal, following various discussions and amendments, is for the development of the site to create 41 new dwellings including an onsite provision of 39% affordable housing (with 1% contribution), with associated landscaping, amenity space, parking and provision of public open space.”

“The northern and western parts of the site would provide public open space and ecological enhancement with the majority of the existing hedgerow running northwest to southwest through the centre of the site (historic field boundary) being retained and incorporated into the layout design with footpath connections to Browns Bridge proposed.”

Officer report

Earlier proposals and history

There was no relevant planning history, but earlier proposals for 55 and 44 homes were reduced to 41 after discussions and amendments.

“There is no relevant planning application history for this site.”

“A Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) was undertaken following the original submission of this application which was for the development of the site to create 44 new dwellings. The original site layout has evolved following discussion with the Local Planning Authority and has attempted to address issues regarding the landscape and visual effects and has resulted in a reduction in the number of dwellings proposed to 41 units.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the housing, affordable homes, design, access and environmental benefits were not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts.

“Accordingly Paragraph 11 d) ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework is engaged. It states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.”

“Against this there is a pressing need for housing when considering the current shortfall. As such, the delivery of 41 dwellings, which are in a sustainable location, would make a significant contribution towards the area’s housing supply providing housing that would meet the needs of the area, and its scale means it has the potential to be built out relatively quickly particularly when having regard to the comments of the SRNP Examiner and in light of consent for the…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The committee heard from a parish council representative, the applicant and the local Ward Member, who opposed the scheme.

What members debated

Members discussed the site’s location, landscape and heritage harm, highway safety, traffic, infrastructure, accessibility, housing need, affordable homes and alternative sites.

“Members asked a series of questions in relation to several issues and commented as follows: the site was outside the development boundary; impact on the HWNL; irreversible harm to medieval field and destruction of an historic / ancient sunken lane; destroy the history of Robertsbridge; suburbanise a routeway along an historic / ancient sunken lane; width of the highway and footpath; pressures on the infrastructure (lack of infrastructure); increased traffic / car dependent…”

“Hobson’s Mill Site; premature application; local community not supportive of the site; pedestrian accessibility to the wildlife area; safety issues regarding the attenuation ponds (fencing); protection of dark skies in the village; not considered major development in context, scale and nature in relation to Robertsbridge; large village with sufficient amenities, therefore it was a sustainable location; significant number of dwellings would need to be built and authorised by…”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillors voted four to three to refuse permission, with one abstention.

“Councillor Mrs Barnes moved the motion to REFUSE (Planning Permission) and this was seconded by Councillor Gray, for the following reasons, namely the application would cause significant harm to a heritage / medieval agricultural field (open green space) and historical routeway (sunken lane), and overall have an adverse impact on the HWNL contrary to Policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan and Policy EN3 of the SRNP (2018- 2028).”

“The motion was declared CARRIED (4 for / 3 against / 1 abstention)”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

Permission was refused because the development would harm the historic field, sunken routeway and High Weald landscape, and lacked a completed planning obligation.

“Robertsbridge is located within the protected area of the High Weald National Landscape and its countryside and village character is partly defined by the presence of Late Post-Medieval (AD 1600 - AD 1799) Historic Field Boundaries and Historic Routeways. Bishops Lane is an Historic Routeway as identified by the High Weald National Landscape team and as classified within the Salehurst and Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Development Plan (SRNDP).”

“NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: In accordance with paragraph 39 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way with the Applicant and has looked for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission. However, the proposal remains contrary to the planning policies set out in the reasons for refusal and was not therefore considered to be sustainable development.”

Minutes