Controversial Little Common housing development refused

Following an almost five-hour session on Thursday (March 12), Rother District Council planners refused an outline application to build up to 160 homes on a greenfield site to the south of Spindlewood Drive.

While the site had been allocated for development within the council’s local plan, the committee opted to refuse on the grounds it was unclear whether the development could avoid an adverse impact to the Pevensey Levels special area of conservation.

The decision came despite strong advice from the council’s planning officers, legal team and a representative of Natural England that conditions would prevent development moving ahead unless detailed mitigation measures could be approved.

One of those to argue for refusal, Richard Thomas (Lib Dem, Bexhill St Stephens) said: “We are dealing here with a site of absolutely the first level of importance, but at the same time it is a site which is under threat.

“The crux of this matter I think is that we come here as a planning committee. We are not in a system whereby officers make the decisions on purely technical grounds.

“Yes, what we say has got to be legally justifiable, but the reason we have a planning committee is to bring our common sense, our life experience and so it isn’t purely a technical matter. We are also here to represent a slither of democracy as well. 

“I am asking the committee to recognise that it would not be human and it would not be legal and it would not be responsible to put this environment at risk. 

“The best way of safeguarding this environment is to make sure there isn’t building between 60 and 100 metres away from it. That is the best way to make sure we have a condition of certainty.”

Following further discussion several committee members put forward a number of reasons to reject the application as part of Cllr Thomas’s motion to refuse. 

These included concerns around the site’s access arrangements and whether a transport assessment by East Sussex Highways was up to date.

The meeting was suspended for around 35 minutes while a written version of these reasons for refusal was drawn up.

Discussing the committee’s reasons for refusal, the council’s head of planning Sam Batchelor urged councillors to “strongly consider” the officer’s recommendation.

He warned there were “deficiencies” in the reasons for refusal and the risk of costs would be “high” in the likely appeal process. 

He also confirmed the council would lose the £1m new homes bonus from the development, if granted at appeal.

Mr Batchelor said: “I respect the decision you are about to make and the council will defend that. 

“But this is an allocated site which has gone through a significant process, including appropriate assessments at both the development plan stage and also the outline application stage.

“If we can’t approve this what housing schemes can we approve? From officers’ perspective this is a very straightforward application, notwithstanding the significance of the issues that have surrounded its determination.

“I wouldn’t be doing my duty if I didn’t advise you of that, notwithstanding the clear view in the room.”

Before moving to the vote, committee chairman Johnathan Vine-Hall (Ind, Sedlescombe and Westfield) urged members to carefully consider their decision.

He said: “I feel it is really important to remind [members] that the planning committee is a quasi-judicial body. That is we are obliged to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions from the application so as to provide the basis of an official action.

“I am not promoting one direction or another, I am just trying to give a good understanding that the officers have tried to condition the application in such a way so that when a full application comes forward there is a complete opportunity [to refuse].

“Keep in mind – and as I said I am not directing in any way here just trying to set out some of the issues that may arise – that if you choose to refuse this at this point in time and it goes to appeal you may fail the appeal.”

Shortly afterwards, the committee refused the application with eight votes to five.

The final vote marked the end of a marathon meeting lasting more than five hours. Discussion of the proposals began shortly after 9.30am and ended (after around a break of around 35 mins) at 2.30pm.

Speaking after the meeting, the applicant’s agent Ben Ellis confirmed the scheme would be taken to appeal as a result of the decision. 

He said the developer intended to maintain its commitment to providing at least 30 per cent of the site as affordable homes.

For further details see application reference RR/2017/1705/P on the Rother District Council planning website.