10 retirement apartments at Pond Cottage, Main Street, Peasmarsh, Rye

What was proposed

A detached two-storey building with 10 apartments was proposed, alongside changes to Pond Cottage including community, care and office uses.

“Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a detached two-storey building containing 10 apartments, comprising six two-bedroom units and four one-bedroom units. The submitted plans show a contemporary two-storey apartment building formed of several interconnected sections.”

“The layout includes construction and landscaping over an existing historic route within the site, which would be covered by proposed hard and soft landscaping and areas of parking. The Grade II Listed Pond Cottage is proposed to be refurbished, with community and care uses at ground-floor level and office space at first-floor level.”

Officer report

Earlier proposals and site history

Earlier supermarket-related schemes were approved, while two pre-application submissions raised concerns about harm to Pond Cottage and the High Weald National Landscape.

“It is noted that an earlier iteration of this proposal was discussed across two pre-application submissions, and on both occasions the Council raised concerns regarding the harmful impact of the proposed building on the setting of the listed building and on the HWNL.”

“An associated Listed Building application also applies (RR/2025/142/L) and only relates to the works to the Grade II Listed Building which are discussed under that relevant application.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found harm to the National Landscape and listed building setting, inappropriate design, policy-compliant affordable housing failures and missing mitigation.

“RR/2025/141/P 1.2 Owing to its height, bulk, layout, positioning and architectural expression, the proposed building would dominate and partially obscure Pond Cottage, resulting in less-than-substantial but avoidable harm to the setting of the listed building.”

“While some technical matters such as highways and drainage could be resolved, the overall harm to the HWNL, the Grade II Listed Building’s setting and the failure to secure policy compliant affordable housing weigh decisively against the proposal. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways and several technical consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, the parish council supported the scheme, and the High Weald committee objected.

“Highway Authority: NO OBJECTION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Comments summarised as follows: This application seeks consent for the erection of 10 affordable apartments for older persons, comprising four one- bedroom and six two-bedroom units. No objection is raised to this application, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. Detailed comments on the Council's Website.”

Officer report

What local people said

Three objections raised concerns about severe flooding, drainage capacity, traffic, pedestrian safety, noise and the loss of a safe walkway.

“DRAINAGE • Area is a recognised severe flooding zone affecting roads, fields, properties and businesses. • Water flows down from Tanhouse Lane, Barnetts Hill and Main Street, causing heavy flooding. • West end of village has no mains drainage; properties rely on septic tanks. • Main Street sewer designed for 100 properties but serves 200+. • 2023 Examiner’s report: drainage and new development are “difficult to reconcile”; problems must be fixed before any new development.”

“PEDESTRIANS • No safe pavements or footpaths to Jempsons or the garage. • Pedestrians rely on public grass verge/lay by as the only safe crossing route. • Development appears to absorb this land, removing the only safe walkway. • Tanhouse Lane is single track; verges and road edges are breaking down. • Winter creates black ice, and the road is not gritted.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent supported the proposal and confirmed willingness to enter a legal agreement, while Councillor Osborne supported it because of its benefits.

What members debated

Members discussed the trees, green buffer, listed building, design, affordable housing, flood risk, community benefits, housing need and the Council’s housing supply.

“Members asked a series of questions in relation to several issues and commented as follows: located in a sustainable area next to a supermarket including car park and petrol station within the HWNL; was a green buffer between the approach to Peasmarsh and the supermarket; would require the removal of a significant number of trees, reducing the openness of the corner plot, although some replacement planting was proposed; lack of evidence submitted to demonstrate that the…”

“After debate and deliberation, the Planning Committee concluded that the public benefits (in particular the 100% affordable housing, the delivery of housing and securing the community use of Pond Cottage) outweighed the harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the landscape and scenic beauty of the HWNL and the less than substantial harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed Building.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted full planning permission because it considered the public benefits outweighed the landscape and listed-building harm.

“Subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and a sequential flood test being completed to the Council’s satisfaction, the Planning Committee granted full planning permission, contrary to officer recommendation, with relevant planning conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement (including but not limited to, securing 100% affordable housing and the community use of Pond Cottage) be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee.”

Minutes