DECISION: REFUSE (RESERVED MATTERS)

REASONS FOR REFUSAL:

1.     The application fails to comply with Condition 8 of the outline planning permission as it does not relate to an agreed first phase and as such is contrary to adopted Policy BX3 of the Rother District Local Plan (2006), the North East Bexhill Supplementary Planning Document and Policies OSS4, SRM2, EN1, EN3, EN5 and TR4 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies DEN1, DEN4, DEN5 and BEX1 of the submitted Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

2.     The application has been submitted in the absence of an acceptable, policy compliant and robust masterplan relating to the entire policy area and as such the opportunity for such a masterplan to inform the design process and strategic layout has been lost.  The application scheme does not propose an appropriate response to context, topography and landscape and is devoid of place-making qualities. The road layout and internal site circulation; significant tree and hedgerow loss; insufficient new structural landscaping, both as buffer and as green space within the development; building layout and cramped development dominated by hard landscaping; all combine to create an unacceptably poor approach to site planning. It does not deliver a place-specific, landscape-led, rural business park with a high quality design and place-making vision at its heart and falls well short of the Supplementary Planning Document and North East Bexhill Design Study objective of an exemplary innovative new type of ‘eco-business park’ based on sustainable design principles (both site-strategy and buildings) of respecting and responding positively to existing landscape and wildlife features, habitats, and ecology systems. Furthermore, the proposal displays little consideration of how the road and buildings of this application will affect the creation of spaces by future applications, and with pedestrian and cycle linkways seemingly unplanned outside of the reserved matters application site. As such this first reserved matters proposal is contrary to adopted Policy BX3 of the Rother District Local Plan (2006), the North East Bexhill Supplementary Planning Document and Policies OSS4, SRM2, EN1, EN3, EN5, TR3 and TR4 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies DEN1, DEN4, DEN5 and BEX1 of the submitted Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

3.     The application would lead to the loss of significant, protected trees, along with hedgerows and this, together with the minimal width of planting proposed alongside the North Bexhill Access Road (Combe Haven Avenue), would lead to development which would unacceptably erode the landscape character of the site and reduce its biodiversity. In this respect, the proposal would be contrary to adopted Policy BX3 of the Rother District Local Plan (2006), the North East Bexhill Supplementary Planning Document and Policies OSS4, EN1, EN3, EN5, TR3 and TR4 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies DEN1, DEN4 and BEX1 of the submitted Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

4.     Biodiversity has not been adequately considered on a site-wide basis and as a result, this first reserved matters application fails to mitigate for its impacts on biodiversity and to provide appropriate compensation and enhancement. As such, the proposal is contrary to adopted Policy BX3 of the Rother District Local Plan (2006), the North East Bexhill Supplementary Planning Document and Policies OSS4 and EN5 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies DEN4 and BEX1 of the submitted Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

5.     The surface water drainage proposals do not appear to have taken into account the strategic drainage requirements of the entire site. It is not clear whether surface water runoff will be managed appropriately and this leads to an unacceptable flood risk. In addition, permeable paving is not proposed. This places greater reliance on underground storage tanks and removes a water treatment stage which had previously been proposed and this reduces the water quality improvement to the surface water runoff on site and potentially, to the Combe Haven Site of Special Scientific Interest. As such the proposals fail to comply with Policies SRM2 and EN7 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies DEN5 and BEX1 of the submitted Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

6.     The proposed diversion to Buckholt Lane would erode this existing route for non-motorised users and particularly for horse riders and not meet the policy requirement to create attractive pedestrian and cycle routes to the various developments coming forward in North Bexhill with the existing Bexhill Hastings Link Road and the Combe Valley Countryside Park. As such this first reserved matters proposal is contrary to adopted Policy BX3 of the Rother District Local Plan (2006), the North East Bexhill Supplementary Planning Document and Policies TR3 and TR4 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies DEN4 and BEX1 of the submitted Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

NOTE:

1.     This refusal of reserved matters relates to the following drawings:

2217/P100.1

2217/P101-118

2217/P201-204

2217/P214

2217/P221-224

2217/P231-234

2217/P241-244

2217/P251-254

2217/P261-264

2217/P271-274

2217/P81

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: In accordance with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, it has not been possible to resolve them. The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.

(Councillor Dixon declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this matter in so far as he was the Council’s appointed representative and Director of Sea Change Sussex and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof, spoke on the application but did not vote).