Playden housing rejected

The Council room was full to standing at the Rother District Council’s (RDC) planning meeting on Thursday May 31 where the New England Lane housing development in Playden was discussed and ultimately rejected.
As previously covered in Rye News, RDC had received an application to demolish a single detached house, plus its paddock, and replace it with up to 24 new homes.
The planners at RDC had already released their initial support for the scheme saying, “this is a finely balanced case. However, it is considered that the collective weight of the benefits of the development outweigh the limited level of harm that would occur to the countryside landscape and the immediate area’s character and appearance.”
While a number of councillors supported the building of new houses to alleviate local housing stress, and on the basis that the government is set to increase local house building targets, the vote went 10, for refusal, and only four in favour.
Objections to the scheme included the density and location of the development and how it would change the character of Playden from a 'hamlet' to a more 'suburban' extension of Rye.
The developers had stressed that 40% of the houses would be affordable and had agreed to protect and enhance the tree lines that bound the site so there would be limited adverse impact on the countryside landscape.
After an extensive discussion, Rother councillors voted to reject the scheme but were reminded that they had had a similar discussion a few years ago when originally rejecting what is now Valley Park in Rye. When the Valley Park developer appealed against that decision the government Inspector voted in the developers favour. As the discussion drew to a close one councillor mused aloud whether RDC had the £100,000 that would be needed to defend this decision.
Editor's note: another disputed decision for housing - Valley Park - went to appeal and was won by the developer. The planning officer for this application, in his summary to the Planning Committee, recommended passing it (see above) and has warned that this, too, could be subject to appeal and felt that the Council would need to set aside £100,000 to deal with this eventuality. Whether Rother has the money to be able to defend an appeal is, however, another matter. It is also possible, of course, that bearing in mind this is not the first application to be refused on this site and being aware by now of the very strong local opposition from residents together with local and district councils, the developers might decide that to pursue the matter further would not be worth their while.