Three major Bexhill housing developments at Kiteye Farm, Mayo Lane and Watermill Lane all approved

After a mammoth seven-hour meeting on Thursday (March 23), Rother District Council’s planning committee has approved three applications submitted by Gladman Developments Limited, which could collectively see up to 460 new homes built at the northern edge of the town.

The largest of these schemes is for up to 250 homes at the Kiteye Farm site in Ninfield Road, with the other proposals to build up to 130 homes at a nearby site in Mayo Lane and up to 80 homes on a parcel of land in Watermill Lane.

Each of the applications had proven controversial with local residents, with numerous objectors raising concerns about the impact of the development on local infrastructure and loss of green space among other issues.

Objectors included Sidley ward councillors Sam Coleman (Lab) and James Carroll (Con), who called on the committee to refuse all three schemes.

Speaking on the Kiteye Farm scheme, Cllr Coleman said: “While the provision of up to 250 dwellings may seem like a positive step forward, significantly boosting the supply of housing, any social and economic benefits of this are outweighed by the negative impact it would have on our environment, infrastructure and community.

“Unless all of these issues can be resolved and until there are plans that meet local need, this cannot be acceptable.”

Similar representations on the Kiteye Farm scheme were made by Cllr Carroll, who highlighted local frustrations around local infrastructure and in particular highways.

Cllr Carroll said: “All of these bits must be done before you can look at the housing. You are not putting the foundation down right and you’ve had lots of years to do it.”

Despite being the largest of the three proposals, the Kiteye Farm site was also the most straightforward for the committee to consider in planning terms. This was mainly as members had less anxiety about the access proposed.

The other sites had both seen numerous concerns raised around access, in particular the possibility of Mayo Lane becoming a ‘rat run’ for traffic.

Similar concerns had initially been raised by East Sussex Highways, but these objections were withdrawn shortly before the hearing. This was on the basis that sufficient mitigations should be put in place, including road improvement works.

Even so, the committee still had significant concerns about the access and the impact of both developments on the local highway network. This resulted in an extensive discussion around whether steps could be taken to close off Mayo Lane to traffic.

Ultimately, the committee approved all three schemes, but asked for officers to work with East Sussex Highways to pursue the closure of Mayo Lane to through traffic.

A key factor in approving the schemes was the council’s Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan of 2019. Two of the sites, Kiteye Farm and Mayo Lane, were allocated as housing sites within the DaSA, meaning that there was a ‘strong presumption in favour of development’ under national planning rules.

In light of this, committee members heard that refusal of the two schemes would likely result in the decisions being overturned at appeal (and a likely award of costs).

Speaking on this point, Cllr John Barnes (Con) said: “I think the lesson that all local communities need to learn from this is the importance of the local community taking the local plan more seriously and objecting at that stage.

“We are beyond that. The problem is, in effect, outline [planning permission] has already been given.”

The Watermill Lane site was not allocated for housing within the DaSA, but sits immediately adjacent to an area which had been. This fact, coupled with the council’s housing shortfall compared to government housing targets, meant a similarly strong presumption in favour of development was also in effect.

While some committee members argued in favour of refusing the Watermill Lane scheme (on grounds including the loss of green space, highways safety and the fact it was not a specifically allocated site), this argument was ultimately unsuccessful.

All three approvals are in outline form only, meaning that further applications for the details of the developments will be required before construction begins.

In the report on Kiteye Farm, officers pointed out the site is allocated for residential development and open space within the development boundary as set out in the DaSA Local Plan and therefore the ‘principle of the proposal has been accepted’.

They drew councillors’ attention to the determination by the Planning Inspector regarding Fryatts Way (RR/2021/1656/P) where he found that the lack of a five-year housing supply was a ‘significant consideration’ in granting consent.

This was an application for 210 homes given the go-ahead at appeal by an inspector in January 2023.

The appeal, from developer Gladman Developments Ltd, was lodged in June 2021 on the basis that Rother District Council had failed to make a decision within the legal timeframe.

Even so, the council confirmed during the appeal process that it likely would have refused the application if it had made its way to a planning committee. This, council officers said, was due to concerns around its location and impact on the character of the surrounding area.

But despite the inspector agreeing with some of the concerns, he concluded the scheme should go ahead, primarily because of a shortage of housing in the district when compared to government housing targets.

For further information on the Kiteye Farm site see application reference RR/2022/2364/P on the Rother District Council website. For the Mayo Lane scheme see application RR/2022/1584/P and for the Watermill Lane site see RR/2021/2545/P.