Planning inspector overturns decision on Bexhill homes

In a decision notice published on April 7, a planning inspector granted developer BHK Construction Ltd permission to build between two and six homes on land to the rear of a number of properties in Sandhurst Lane.

Rother District Council had declined to grant permission for the scheme in November, citing concerns around highway safety and the ‘sustainability’ of its location.

In a decision notice at the time, a council spokesman said: “The approach road, Sandhurst Lane (U6208), is unsuitable to serve the proposed development without adverse impact to highway/pedestrian safety by reason of its narrow width, poor alignment and high banks especially in close proximity with the junction to Barnhorn Road and it has no footways.

“In addition to that, the site is in an unsustainable location in terms of accessibility to local services and facilities via sustainable transport modes due to the lack of safe footways on the approach road and the development would likely be reliant on the private car to meet the day-to-day needs of its occupants.

“Whilst the council does not presently have a five-year housing land supply and the proposal would contribute towards meeting the housing need, this would not outweigh the significant harm to the highway safety caused by the unsuitable and unsustainable location of the site in terms of accessibility. Even the proposed net minimum amount of residential development in this location is considered to prejudice highway/pedestrian safety.”

This view had been shared by East Sussex Highways, which had lodged an objection to the proposals. In their objection, highways officers said access to the site would require visibility splays, which were simply “unachievable” on the site.

According to the planning inspector, the developer had argued that determination of highways matters was “not applicable” for this particular application.

This was because the developer’s application had sought “in-principle” permission, which the inspector described as “an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development.”

Such applications consist of two stages: the first establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle; and the second, known as Technical Details Consent (TDC), is when the detailed development proposals are assessed.

The developer said the highways matters should be determined during the second stage.

The inspector did not fully share this view, saying determination of whether the site is a suitable location was “a fundamental question in this case”. They said this question required consideration of whether the site can be safely accessed via the existing road network.

But the inspector also took the view that the specifics of the site’s access would be a matter for the TDC stage of the application process.

The inspector did not share the council’s opinion that the development’s location would result in harm to highway safety. They concluded that the location, the proposed use and amount of development would all be suitable for the site.

In their decision notice, the inspector said: “The proposal would increase the opportunity for conflict between road users but there is no substantive evidence to indicate that this would be materially harmful and that the residual cumulative impacts would tip over into being unacceptable in terms of highway safety for all users or severe to the road network.”