River breach scheme at Chyngton Brooks, Seaford

Who spoke

Two objectors, representing path users and the local community, spoke against the application; three supporters, including conservation organisations, spoke in favour.

What members discussed

Members questioned the construction and stability of the breaches, the new freshwater ponds, footpath widening, and the section 106 arrangements with East Sussex County Council.

“SDNP/25/04080/FUL – LAND AT CHYNGTON BROOKS, SEAFORD 8. The Principal Planning Officer presented the application and reminded Members of the report (Report PC26/27-01) and the update sheet. The following speakers addressed the committee against the application: • Johnathan Sullivan, representing the Sussex Area Ramblers’ Association. • Daniel Clarke, representing himself and the Cuckmere Community. 10.”

“Questioned whether any modelling had been undertaken to demonstrate that the proposed new paths would be sufficient to manage the displacement caused by the changes to the existing footpaths. • Asked why footpath 21b was being widened to 2m whilst other footpaths were being widened to 3m. • Questioned whether there was scope within the application to undertake work to improve the usability of the footpaths in the face of future inundation.”

Minutes

Natural processes versus bridges

Officers explained that policy favours natural processes, and that bridges were considered but discounted for their engineering, ecological and landscape impact.

“The Shoreline Management Plan requires no active intervention and the Authorities own policies seek to allow natural processes and minimal interventions. The introduction of bridges along the path was considered as part of the analysis but would require a significant amount of engineering with a resulting impact on ecology, the landscape and water management. • Ongoing monitoring and maintenance of pathways 26a would be required as part of the section 106 agreement.”

Minutes

Decision

Members delegated authority to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement covering access mitigation, footpath widening, monitoring and biodiversity net gain.

“RESOLVED: 1) That the Director of Placemaking be delegated authority to grant planning permission subject to: (a) a resolution to grant planning permission for the development outside the South Downs National Park by East Sussex County Council; (b) the conditions set out Section 9 of this report, in the update sheet, and any amendments or other conditions to address technical matters (which includes minor changes required in order to align the permission with that granted by…”

“Access Mitigation and Enhancement Package, including but not limited to: • Phasing and delivery/creation of a new footpath as set out on the proposed site plan, including details of signage, gates and any other associated structure and proposed implementation time scales; • Monitoring strategy over a 25-year period for new footpath; • Financial (surety) bond provided by applicant in order for any necessary surface improvements to the new footpath be carried out over a…”

Minutes

If the agreement is not completed

If the section 106 agreement is not completed or sufficient progress is not made within six months, the Director of Placemaking may refuse the application instead.

“2) That authority be delegated to the Director of Placemaking to refuse the application with appropriate reasons if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed or sufficient progress has not been made within 6 months of the 16 July 2026 Planning Committee Meeting. 3) That the Committee confirm in reaching their decision that they have taken into account: i.”

Minutes