340-home outline development at Rosewood Park - Land north of, Bexhill

What was proposed

The committee considered changing the sustainable-transport terms of the proposed agreement, with all other provisions remaining as previously agreed.

“The application was referred to the Planning Committee for consideration of a proposed amendment to the terms of the proposed Section 106 Planning Obligation that had been delegated for approval by the Planning Committee in June 2025 pursuant to its determination of planning application RR/ 2023/1721/P.”

“The Planning Committee considered the application to vary the proposed Section 106 Planning Obligation in relation to sustainable transport only, with all other provisions of the proposed agreement remaining as previously agreed. It was noted that the Planning Committee had approved the recommendation to grant outline planning permission in June 2025.”

Minutes

Planning history

Earlier permissions covered 275 homes and related development, while the application site itself had no relevant planning history.

“The application site itself does not have any relevant planning history, however, there are two important applications which are relevant to the site which are listed below.”

“RR/2012/1978/P Mixed-use development comprising 275 dwellings, up to 3,500sqm of employment floorspace comprising up to 2,750sqm of b1(a) office and up to 750sqm of b1(c) light industrial, a nursing home (use class c2) of up to 60 beds, a doctors surgery (use class d1) for up to 10 gps, and a one form entry primary school, together with associated landscaping, drainage and highway infrastructure works – APPROVED (by Committee 26 November 2014).”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers recommended granting outline permission because the development benefits were not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by landscape and other adverse impacts.

“When assessed as a whole, the identified benefits, particularly the delivery of affordable housing (policy compliant), market housing, enhanced community infrastructure for future residents, and improved transport and drainage provision, are not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the landscape and any other adverse impacts. Therefore, the tilted balance is engaged, and it is considered that planning permission should be granted.”

“In accordance with Paragraph 11 (d) of the National Planning Policy Framework, officers consider that the planning benefits of the development proposal would not be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts, when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing…”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Most public representations objected, citing access, congestion, character, infrastructure, drainage, flooding, habitats and local service pressures.

“To the development proposal on the basis of overdevelopment and lack of infrastructure to support density.”

“Of these representations 126 were objections, the remainder were general observations and support. Representations can be read in full on the Council’s website. The main comments and issues raised are summarised as follows: • This site should have its own entrance not using the existing Rosewood estate. • Access concerns. • Traffic congestion. • The development would harm the character of the area. • Barnhorn Road can’t accommodate extra traffic.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident and the local Ward Member, Councillor Winter, made verbal representations to the committee.

Members’ concerns

Members sought clarification about access, vehicle movements, school transport for primary and secondary pupils, and its relationship with the DDRT scheme.

“During the discussion, Members referenced an email they had received from the Campaign to Protect Rural England which raised concerns about the correctness of the original application submitted to the Planning Committee in June 2025 and the completion of an Appropriate Assessment (AA). The Development Manager stated that it was inappropriate to discuss this information at the meeting since Planning Officers had not received it and were unaware of it.”

“Members also raised questions and concerns about the site access road, the anticipated number of vehicle movements if school bus provision was not provided, and whether ESCC Highways had considered and consulted on a bespoke school bus service for both primary and secondary pupils, particularly in relation to the distances children and students would need to travel to school and how this related to the DDRT scheme.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor J. Barnes moved deferral, Councillor Stanger seconded it, and the motion was carried unanimously with seven votes in favour.

“Councillor J. Barnes moved the motion to DEFER to receive further clarity from ESCC Highways regarding a bespoke school bus service and how this related to the DDRT, prior to reconsideration of the amendment to the proposed Section 106 Agreement regarding sustainable transport and this was seconded by Councillor Stanger. The motion was declared CARRIED (7 for / unanimous).”

Minutes

The decision

The committee deferred the proposed sustainable-transport agreement amendment pending further clarity from East Sussex County Council Highways Authority.

“11 DECISION: DEFERRED TO RECEIVE FURTHER CLARITY FROM EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY REGARDING A BESPOKE SCHOOL BUS SERVICE AND HOW THIS RELATED TO THE DIGITAL DEMAND RESPONSIVE TRANSPORT SCHEME”

Minutes