Developers lose appeal against refusal to build homes in Telham, near Battle

Developers have lost their appeal against refusal by Rother council planners to allow them to build houses on a greenfield site in Telham, just outside of Battle.

In March last year, they were refused permission by Rother District Council (RDC) to build up to six semi-detached homes on the site in Hastings Road, part of the nearby Telham Farm.

News

News

Developers then submitted a fresh application in July 2018, this time seeking permission to build four dwellings, along with an access drive and parking for eight vehicles.

But this too was refused planning permission by RDC in October last year.

The proposals attracted around 50 objections, which had been submitted to Rother, with Telham residents expressing their concerns about a potential increase in traffic volume on the A2100 and how the new homes will impact upon local wildlife.

Concerns were also raised over the loss of greenfield land in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and that toxic waste from the demolition of Glyne Gap gas works may have been dumped on the land which could contaminate nearby streams and agricultural land if disturbed.

Planners previously said the land in the application, while not itself used to dump the contaminated waste, was close enough to the landfill site to require a risk assessment if planning permission had been granted.

In dismissing the appeal, a report by HM Planning Inspectorate, dated September 11 this year, said: “Accessibility to services, facilities and employment from the site other than by private car would be poor, and it is likely that those occupying the dwellings would rely heavily on this mode of transport. 

“It remains the case that there would be a lack of sustainable transport choices available to enable future residents to conveniently access services and facilities. This weighs heavily against the development. 

“While the development would make a limited contribution to the local economy and social well being of the area, this factor would not outweigh concerns over the location of the proposal.

“Residential development of this order with gardens and any associated domestic paraphernalia, such as washing lines, children’s play equipment and barbecues, would lead to the urbanisation of an essentially rural environment, harming the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.” 

In other news:

Robertsbridge family loses High Court challenge for special education funding.

Battle car park reopens after work to address parking issues.

Closing children’s centres ‘an attack on most vulnerable’ in East Sussex.