The Rother District Council Planning Committee met to discuss several planning applications, including a large residential development in Salehurst/Robertsbridge, modifications to a Section 106 agreement in Bexhill, and a Lawful Development Certificate for Bexhill Museum. The committee also discussed a variation of condition relating to a drainage scheme at Sidley Recreation Ground.

Land near Bishop's Lane, Salehurst / Robertsbridge

The committee was scheduled to discuss planning application RR/2022/1379/P for the development of land near Bishop's Lane to create 41 new dwellings, including 39% affordable housing, with associated landscaping, amenity space, parking, and public open space.

The Head of Planning, Mike Hughes, recommended that planning permission be granted, delegated subject to satisfactory finalisation of conditions and the prior completion of a Section 106 agreement. The agreement was intended to secure:

• Provision of off-site highway works as required by East Sussex County Council Highway Authority
• Financial contributions as required by East Sussex County Council Highway Authority
• Provision of informal play space and ongoing management and maintenance
• Provision of open space and ongoing management and maintenance
• Provision of a sustainable drainage system and ongoing management and maintenance
• Affordable housing provision and contribution
• A local employment and skills plan
• Biodiversity net gain units

Councillor Susan Prochak (MBE) requested the application be brought before the committee, because the site was overwhelmingly rejected in the Neighbourhood Plan as the least acceptable, because it destroys the green corridor in the centre of the village and access is via an ancient sunken lane with no pavements, used by pupils accessing the secondary school on foot.

The report pack noted that the site is a greenfield site within the High Weald National Landscape¹ (HWNL), located outside but surrounded by the development boundary for Robertsbridge, as identified in the Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan² (SRNP), and is not allocated for development. There is also a Local Green Space Designation to the north on the other side of the watercourse.

The report pack stated that new residential development in the countryside would normally be considered unacceptable in principle, but the council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of housing. It also noted that the SRNP was made in July 2018 and therefore, it is more than five years old, meaning Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework does not apply in relation to Paragraph 11(d).

The report pack stated that the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained within the National Planning Policy Framework therefore applies. For decisions this means, under Paragraph 11 (d), granting permission unless:

i) the application of policies in the National Planning Policy Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or

ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken 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 affordable homes, individually or in combination'.

The report pack stated that it was not considered that the impact of the proposal on areas or assets of particular importance would provide a clear reason for refusing the development.

The report pack stated that the provision of 41 dwellings would help to boost the supply of housing in the district, and the delivery of 16 affordable dwellings is a significant benefit. The housing development also represents a suitably high-quality design, in a sustainable location and would retain and reinforce existing planting as well as enhance with new native hedgerows, shrub and tree planting along with improved public access. In addition, the proposal would provide housing for a range of differing household types, and the use of conditions and a planning obligation would make the development acceptable in planning terms.

The report pack stated that there would be some harm to the HWNL and the historic routeway of Bishop's Lane and the proposal would have a neutral impact on the setting of a Grade II Listed Building.

The report pack stated that overall, the adverse impacts of the scheme would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole.

Mount View Street, Bexhill

The committee was scheduled to discuss application RR/2025/654/P, concerning a modification to the Section 106 Agreement associated with planning permission RR/2022/1246/P at Mount View Street, Bexhill. The application sought to remove an obligation to provide a public arts strategy contribution and proposed amendments to the highway work obligations.

Mike Hughes recommended that the committee approve modification of the Section 106 planning obligation to remove the art and public realm contribution and vary the highway work obligations to include a Minor Works Agreement, delegated subject to completion of deed of variation.

The report pack stated that the application was made under Section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and relates to Application RR/2022/1246/P, a hybrid planning application consisting of full planning permission for erection of an inpatient mental health facility (IMHF), landscaping, car parking and associated works (Phase 1), and outline planning permission for an additional IMHF and support facilities with all matters reserved (Phase 2). The scheme was granted planning permission subject to conditions and a planning obligation and is currently under construction.

The report pack stated that Application RR/2022/1246/P supersedes the previous outline application RR/2015/1760/P, which was for a residential-led mixed use urban extension including 1,050 dwellings, (referred to locally as the North East Bexhill development). The planning obligation for RR/2015/1760/P included a financial contribution of £1,200 per dwelling towards the provision of public art and improvement of the public realm in Bexhill Town Centre, which was considered necessary for the proposed new dwellings at the site to be acceptable in planning terms. In approving Application RR/2022/1246/P, the obligations and conditions relating to Application RR/2015/1760/P where applicable were carried over in part or full.

The report pack stated that Condition 42 imposed on RR/2022/1246/P relates to an artist-led Public Art Strategy for the site, details of this have subsequently been approved and the strategy includes an artwork at the Gateway to the new hospital, with a budget of £40,000. In regard to the Planning Obligation for RR/2022/1246/P this includes an 'Art and Public Realm Contribution' of £40,000 to be paid towards the provision of public art and improvement of the public realm in Bexhill Town Centre.

The report pack stated that no new dwellings are now proposed at the site and instead an IMHF is being constructed which would result in benefits to the wider and local area. In addition, the scheme contains its own 'public art' proposals as agreed under Condition 42. As such the current wording of the Section 106 Agreement in respect of the provision of public art and improvement of the public realm in Bexhill Town Centre does not provide a necessary planning purpose in relation to the medical site and the development now approved would already bring significant social and economic benefit both to the site and wider area.

The report pack stated that it is also proposed to make amendments to the highway work obligations within the Section 106 Agreement so that the NHS Trust would undertake essential highway access works via an MWA³. The works to be secured by the MWA form part of the scope of the main Section 278 works⁴ for the wider housing scheme to be delivered by Vistry Homes Limited and it has been requested that works be carried out under an MWA ahead of the main Agreement being completed to avoid any delays in the IMHF becoming operational. There would be no detriment to the delivery of highway works required by either the IMHF or the wider housing scheme.

Sidley Recreation Ground, Canada Way, Bexhill

The committee was scheduled to discuss application RR/2025/1008/P for a variation of Condition 2 imposed on RR/2024/935/P at Sidley Recreation Ground, Canada Way, Bexhill, to amend the drainage scheme.

Mike Hughes recommended that the committee grant full planning permission.

The report pack stated that the proposal seeks to vary Condition 2, the approved plans, of planning consent RR/2024/935/P, to allow for updated drainage information and an amended drainage plan. The updated details are considered to be reasonable, as the surface water discharge rate would not be increased above what was previously approved and the foul water would discharge into the public sewer.

The report pack stated that the new details contain the following:

• The foul water drainage has been revised to omit the previously proposed foul water pumping station.
• The surface water drainage has been adjusted as some components that were previously proposed are no longer available and further investigations showed that there would be cross pipes within the approved scheme.

Bexhill Museum Public Conveniences, Egerton Road, Bexhill

The committee was scheduled to discuss application RR/2025/902/O, a Lawful Development Certificate for the proposed conversion of existing toilets to a store and study space at Bexhill Museum, Egerton Road, Bexhill.

Mike Hughes recommended that the committee issue a Lawful Development Certificate.

The report pack stated that the application seeks formal confirmation that planning permission is not required for proposals to convert the public toilets within the lower floor of the Museum into a store and study space, which would be integrated with the main Museum.

The report pack stated that the works include various internal alterations i.e. infilling and reopening of doorways and removal of walls, together with general refurbishment works throughout. The external works include a replacement door on the rear elevation and the infilling of a side door.

The report pack stated that having regard to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: Part 3, Section 55, Paragraph 2(a), the proposed internal and external alterations would not fall within the meaning of 'development'. As such, planning permission is not required for the proposed works.