Pebsham 'back garden' homes rejected

Members of Rother's planning committee ignored the officer recommendation to grant permission for an eight home development in

Pebsham Lane and passed a delegated refusal.

A cul-de-sac of five houses and three bungalows would have replaced two existing bungalows.

Objectors say the scheme is an example of the controversial practice of 'infilling' - where developers target homes with sizeable gardens.

A previous application for 11 homes on the site was refused by Rother last year and their decision was backed by a government inspector on appeal.

However, Rother chief planning officer Frank Rallings explained to members the inspector's report did support the idea of development at the front of the plot and officers believed the new application had addressed other concerns raised in the document.

He said the area for debate was the rear of the scheme bordering Rowan Gardens.

He said: "We (at the first application) took the view with residents in Pebsham Lane this development is not acceptable, but we weren't supported in that view."

The official reason for the rejection was given as overdevelopment at the back of the plot.

Cllr Brian Kentfield, who moved the recommendation, said: "The reason for refusal is quite simple. With the proposed lay out at the rear of the development, it would be a far better arrangement with three bungalows to avoid the overlooking which would occur at the back of the development."

Cllr Paul Lendon labelled the scheme as, 'deplorable.'

He said: "As regards infilling, this is about the biggest con and worst example I have come across since I have been sitting on planning."

Ward member Cllr Martyn Forster, who sits on the committee, said: "Many people in Bexhill and Rother believe that speculators encouraged by government policy are, 'trying it on' with back garden development. The effect is also, it seems, beginning to influence decisions made by appeal inspectors on appeal.

"We are witnessing a sea change in planning policy, which allows perfectly good homes to be demolished so that high density housing can take its place."

"I question whether it is the inspector's duty to enforce government objectives," said Cllr David Vereker. "If we don't fight this tooth and nail we will have back land developments everywhere."

Ward member Cllr Charles Clark addressed the committee and asked them to reject the scheme.

He said: "We don't have to agree with the government inspector's comments - we can express a view. Local residents expect Rother to listen and support their views, otherwise asking their views on planning applications is pointless."

Speaking after the meeting, Cllr Clark added: "I am delighted on behalf of Pebsham residents. In its present form this application was not acceptable."