Controversial housing plans to go before council

The plans would see 41 homes built on agricultural land north of Bishops Lane in Robertsbridge

Controversial plans to build 41 homes on a patch of agricultural land in East Sussex are set to go before a planning committee.

The plans, submitted by Devine Homes PLC, would see the estate built on land north of Bishops Lane in Robertsbridge.

The site has previously been rejected when submitted as an option for development in the Salehurst and Robertsbridge Local Plan.

Rother District Council's (RDC) planning committee will formally consider the proposals on 4 September.

If approved, the development is expected to be made up of four one-bedroom flats, six two bedroom flats, four two-bedroom maisonettes, 15 two-bedroom houses, and 12 three-bedroom houses.

Among those properties, 16 are classed as affordable housing.

In a report to the committee, Councillor Susan Prochak from RDC said: "The site was overwhelmingly rejected in the Neighbourhood Plan as the least acceptable in that it destroys the green corridor in the centre of the village and access is via an ancient sunken lane with no pavements."

Concerns about traffic, conflicts with the neighbourhood plan and harm to the High Weald National Landscape were raised by Salehurst and Robertsbridge Parish Council (SRPC), the Sussex branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and a significant number of residents, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.

No traffic objections had been raised by East Sussex Highways, the report said.

A spokesperson for RDC's planning committee said that while applications relating to previously rejected sites under the local plan would "normally be considered unacceptable in principle", current policy restrictions relating to development boundaries were "out-of-date".

This means national planning rules come into play which provide a "presumption in favour" of development being approved, unless there are harms which significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits.

It also added that concerns raised would be unlikely to offer "strong grounds for refusal" and that the plan was recommended for approval.