Calls to rescind permission for councillor's new home are voted down

On Wednesday (September 21), Rother District Council debated a Conservative-backed motion, which called on members to overturn a decision on the construction of a two-bedroom modular dwelling on land at Beech Farm, off of Hawkhurst Road near Sedlescombe.

The application had been put forward in a personal capacity by Cllr Jonathan Vine-Hall — chair of the planning committee and cabinet member for strategic planning — who left the chamber during discussion of the motion.

While the scheme had been recommended for refusal by officers, the committee concluded that it qualified for an ‘exceptional design’ status due in large part to its environmentally friendly features.

This status meant the scheme could be approved despite going against planning policies designed to prevent building in open countryside.

But a number of parish councils argue the approval will erode protections against development within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Conservative councillor Mary Barnes said: “I accept that there is a persuasive argument for approving a house which is more environmentally friendly than most. Indeed we should be looking to all new build houses to match this. But that does not justify building houses of a similar design on isolated countryside sites across the High Weald AONB and elsewhere. That is what has been voted for.”

She went on to argue that the ‘exceptional design’ status — which comes from national planning guidance had been misinterpreted by the committee.

This view was stressed by several other Conservative councillors, who argued its modular nature meant it could not be defined as ‘exceptional’.

Others argued the motion sought to overturn a democratic decision reached by the planning committee.

Lynn Langlands (Ind) said: “It would appear that some planning committee members are unwilling to accept the democratic process of the planning committee.”

Others, including council deputy leader Susan Prochak (Lib Dem), implied the motion may have been politically-motivated or based on ‘personal vindictiveness’. This argument is disputed by the parish councils which backed the motion.

Ultimately, councillors rejected the motion on a majority vote.

Objectors have spoken of plans to mount a judicial review of the planning committee’s original decision and it is understood that attempts to call-in the approval are also ongoing.