Local Planning Applications

31 Fair Lane, Robertsbridge TN32 5AS

Retrospective Listed Building consent for the replacement of the rear door with new traditionally styled planked ledged and braced door (matching the existing).

Parish Comment Pending

The Barn, Bantony Manor Silverhill, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5PA

Development:  Extension and conversion of building for use as holiday accommodation.

Parish Comment Pending

The Barn, Bantony Manor Silverhill, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5PA

Development:  Extension and conversion of building for use as holiday accommodation.

[Listed Building Consent application]

Parish Comment Pending

GEORGE INN High Street, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5AW

Development: Redevelopment/landscaping of car park and the external parts of the public house to create pub gardens and accessible route into pub via the southern access point. Removal of modern wall. The retention of the outbuilding in a revised form for ancillary use.

See documents - the documents for this application can be found in the documents section of the associated  listed building consent application RR/2026/0838/LBC

Support REFUSAL by RDC

The Parish Council recognises the importance of supporting local businesses including The George Inn, which is a much-loved historic building and public house at the heart of the village conservation area.  We also appreciate that it is difficult to make a public house viable in the current economic climate.  However, having considered this application, we feel the plans must be resubmitted.  The landlady and her husband (who is a Director of the George Inn) spoke on behalf of the applicant at our Planning Committee on 5^th October and acknowledged that the plans included in the application on Rother District Council (RDC) portal are not correct.  We consider that what appears to be an error by the planning consultant appointed by the applicant renders them therefore materially misleading.

In particular, the landlady accepted that the revised beer garden shown in the plans for the southern entrance (currently the rear courtyard beer garden)  is inaccurate; we were informed that the actual proposal for this area is a delivery and parking area.  This leads us to question what the central paved area on the Northern aspect (currently part of the George Inn car park) is for, although we assume that it must be for use by larger lorries and vans delivering beer etc.  It means that those viewing the plans online have been misled as to what is proposed, and some may wish to revise their comments.  If lorries and vans are to deliver but the seating area near the memorial is approved then they will be unable to turn within the area which poses significant safety issues.

That said, we noted the RDC pre-application advice of 18 May 2026 shared with us by the applicant and considered the application at our Planning Committee.  For the reasons set out below, we request that RDC refuse the application unless significant amendments are made, and accurate plans submitted. The proposals, as submitted now, would result in loss of privacy for nearby neighbours, increased noise and disturbance, and harm to the character of the Robertsbridge Conservation Area. These impacts are material planning considerations which have not been adequately assessed or mitigated within the application documents.

Heritage Context

The George Inn is a listed building in the Robertsbridge Conservations area.  Policy EC4 of Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Development Plan (SRNDP) lists the George Inn as a historic asset of community value.  Any changes to the building and its land should preserve or enhance its character.  The NPPF (HE1, HE5 and HE6) states that local historic buildings “must be conserved in a manner appropriate to their specific significance. …development proposals affecting a historic building or its setting in a village must avoid or minimise harm to its significance. Any harmful impact requires a clear and convincing justification.  Any garden furniture or structures must be moveable and any walls or fencing appropriate to the historic setting”. The land at the front of the inn has traditionally been used not just for parking but also as a village gathering point as it is directly next to Robertsbridge War Memorial, itself a listed building, used as the focal point for large village ceremonies on Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day (November 11^th),  as well as other commemorations such as VE80. The newly proposed seating area is in extremely close proximity to the war memorial which some residents feel is disrespectful to those villagers who lost their lives.  If Rother were minded to approve this seating, then appropriate space would be needed between the memorial and any proposed seating or wall / fence.  The village needs access to view the memorial and place wreaths / flowers etc., and the Parish Council needs access to the memorial clock tower and land around it twice weekly for clock-winding and other maintenance as required.  It is unclear how easy this will be if the application goes ahead though we note the landlady said the George would be happy to take appropriate steps. In addition, local historians note that the land to the front of the George includes the site of a historic well, and an undercroft, so archaeological advice should be sought.  It is also important that the bank of unlisted land between the car park and the well-used, surfaced path beneath it (public footpath Salehurst 43b) is not compromised by any construction or change in planting.  This bank has always been maintained by the neighbouring residents (including of the George Inn) in order to maintain its appearance, but also its stability.

Loss of Parking and Impact on Village Life

We object to the proposed reduction in parking places.  This will have a significant impact on village life.  The current car park is used for deliveries, hotel guests, staff and pub users.  Pre application advice suggests there is sufficient village on-street and car park parking for The George.  This is not correct.  On-street parking places are in high demand with frequent change of vehicles each day.  In fact, empty spaces along the whole stretch of the High Street and Station Road are rare throughout the day. George Hill is already full of cars, particularly at school drop off and pick up and when school events take place.   In addition, places are in high demand at the Station Road car park. This pressure will only increase with the development of Grove Farm, a sizeable development site in the Rother Local Plan opposite The George.  Part of this already has planning permission and the remainder has been included in the Rother Draft Local Plan.

The George Inn is located directly opposite the village school and nursery, so parking and road safety is already an issue at this location, which is at the bottom of George Hill, the only southern entrance to the village.  We always object to applications which result in loss of parking, as per Policy IN1 of the Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Development Plan (SRNDP).   Reducing the available parking will have several negative impacts on local residents, businesses and visitors:

• Increased pressure on High Street and George Hill parking, which is already limited and heavily used by residents, shoppers, and those accessing local services including Salehurst Primary School and Robertsbridge Children’s Services (the village nursery / pre-school).
• Displacement of vehicles into nearby roads, creating congestion and reducing available parking for residents.
• Safety concerns. The proposed parking bay on the rear of the George is at a critical bend opposite the school entrance which has ‘no parking’ chevrons: East Sussex Road Safety will need to review this.
• Accessibility issues, as reduced on‑site parking will make it harder for people with mobility challenges to visit the pub.  This also contradicts one of the stated objectives of the application which is to improve disabled access.

Improvements to the pub garden and access routes should not come at the cost of essential parking provision in a constrained village centre.  We request that RDC insist a thorough parking survey for all times of the day and night during primary and secondary term time is undertaken prior to resubmission of the application, and that adequate on‑site parking is retained.

Loss of Privacy and increased noise resulting from the proposals

NPPF material considerations include the loss of privacy and potential for increased noise and light pollution for residents from extending the current outdoor seating to the northern end of the car park, near the war memorial.  The height of the land in that area means the proposed new seating area, furthest away from the Inn, would directly overlook bedrooms at eye level, and living rooms below for several old cottages at close proximity to the proposed seating.  Because they are listed buildings, these cottages are not permitted to have standard thick double glazing to mitigate noise.  These applications therefore represent an unacceptable loss of privacy and noise disturbance.

This summer there have been noise and behaviour associated complaints about customers in the car park, but we were told by the landlady that this is being dealt with.  It is difficult to see how any appropriate screening could be introduced without impacting the historic setting. Displacing vehicles to surrounding roads will inevitably result in vehicle movements, door slamming and engine noise until the late evening.  We have no objection to improved landscaping to the current seating area which we agree would help to attract pub users but question the need for this furthest seating area.  Why not leave the existing seating in the southern courtyard, which is well used in the summer months, and reasonably secluded, thereby negating the need for the furthest seating on the northern side?  If the courtyard wall was removed as proposed, then the seating would be more visible and inviting from both the South and North entrances.   However, efforts would need to be made to minimise any resulting light and noise pollution for neighbouring properties and the local environment.

Outbuilding

The outbuilding at the rear of the property, which forms part of this application, has already been refused by appeal.  It is regrettable that it has not been removed.  However, we recognise that its use has been changed to reduce noise disturbance.  If Rother is minded to allow it to remain then close attention must be paid to the materials used in order to ensure that is blends in with the main building.  In particular, we question the use of timber cladding. Within the Conservation areas development proposals and extensions and alterations to existing building and structure will be expected to be suitably designed for the context with which they are set… and use traditional and vernacular building materials to respect the context of the development concerned”. (SRNDP Policy H06 Conservation Areas).

Other facts to consider

In addition, we wish to highlight the following facts about the application:

1. As already stated, the application is ambiguous as to whether and where parking is to be included on site, making it confusing and misleading.
2. It is not clear from the application that there is already a sizeable rear courtyard garden with seating. This, in addition to the already expanded seating at the front of the inn, could provide enough outdoor seating if rearranged with more attractive landscaping. We are not against removal of the courtyard wall as it is not part of the original listed building. We do not believe the proposal to extend the front garden to near the war memorial would result in a significant net increase in outdoor seating capacity if the southern beer garden were removed.
3. There is already disabled access via the rear garden gate, a fact which is not acknowledged or highlighted in the application. Such would have been a requirement of previous alterations (construction of George Close), and has been opened on request for a number of years.
4. There is an incomplete business case. It is not known whether the proposed increase in garden seating would automatically increase sales, although we acknowledge it may make the Inn more attractive. Just removing the brick wall of the southern beer garden and redesigning the area next to the front of the building could be sufficient.
5. We find it difficult to establish from representations made online which comments are submitted by those who understand the full impact of these proposals bearing in mind the material error in the plans.
6. Finally, our District Councillor, Cllr Prochak, as direct neighbour to The George Inn is not permitted to call in this application in order to highlight residents’ concerns to Officers or Councillors, or even delegate this action to another District Councillor. We believe this to be wrong and that it puts us at a distinct disadvantage. Why are we being discriminated against for having a representative who lives at the heart of our community? We respectively ask that consideration of the application(s) acknowledges that we would have requested our District Councillor to ‘call in’ the application, for it to be considered by RDC Planning Committee.   6/10/26

GEORGE INN High Street, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5AW

Redevelopment/landscaping of car park and the external parts of the public house to create pub gardens and accessible route into pub via the southern access point. Removal of modern wall. The retention of the outbuilding in a revised form for ancillary use.

See documents - the documents for this and RR/2026/0837/FULL can be found under this application, not under the full application RR/2026/0837/FULL

Support REFUSAL by RDC

The Parish Council recognises the importance of supporting local businesses including The George Inn, which is a much-loved historic building and public house at the heart of the village conservation area.  We also appreciate that it is difficult to make a public house viable in the current economic climate.  However, having considered this application, we feel the plans must be resubmitted.  The landlady and her husband (who is a Director of the George Inn) spoke on behalf of the applicant at our Planning Committee on 5^th October and acknowledged that the plans included in the application on Rother District Council (RDC) portal are not correct.  We consider that what appears to be an error by the planning consultant appointed by the applicant renders them therefore materially misleading.

In particular, the landlady accepted that the revised beer garden shown in the plans for the southern entrance (currently the rear courtyard beer garden)  is inaccurate; we were informed that the actual proposal for this area is a delivery and parking area.  This leads us to question what the central paved area on the Northern aspect (currently part of the George Inn car park) is for, although we assume that it must be for use by larger lorries and vans delivering beer etc.  It means that those viewing the plans online have been misled as to what is proposed, and some may wish to revise their comments.  If lorries and vans are to deliver but the seating area near the memorial is approved then they will be unable to turn within the area which poses significant safety issues.

That said, we noted the RDC pre-application advice of 18 May 2026 shared with us by the applicant and considered the application at our Planning Committee.  For the reasons set out below, we request that RDC refuse the application unless significant amendments are made, and accurate plans submitted. The proposals, as submitted now, would result in loss of privacy for nearby neighbours, increased noise and disturbance, and harm to the character of the Robertsbridge Conservation Area. These impacts are material planning considerations which have not been adequately assessed or mitigated within the application documents.

Heritage Context

The George Inn is a listed building in the Robertsbridge Conservations area.  Policy EC4 of Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Development Plan (SRNDP) lists the George Inn as a historic asset of community value.  Any changes to the building and its land should preserve or enhance its character.  The NPPF (HE1, HE5 and HE6) states that local historic buildings “must be conserved in a manner appropriate to their specific significance. …development proposals affecting a historic building or its setting in a village must avoid or minimise harm to its significance. Any harmful impact requires a clear and convincing justification.  Any garden furniture or structures must be moveable and any walls or fencing appropriate to the historic setting”. The land at the front of the inn has traditionally been used not just for parking but also as a village gathering point as it is directly next to Robertsbridge War Memorial, itself a listed building, used as the focal point for large village ceremonies on Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day (November 11^th),  as well as other commemorations such as VE80. The newly proposed seating area is in extremely close proximity to the war memorial which some residents feel is disrespectful to those villagers who lost their lives.  If Rother were minded to approve this seating, then appropriate space would be needed between the memorial and any proposed seating or wall / fence.  The village needs access to view the memorial and place wreaths / flowers etc., and the Parish Council needs access to the memorial clock tower and land around it twice weekly for clock-winding and other maintenance as required.  It is unclear how easy this will be if the application goes ahead though we note the landlady said the George would be happy to take appropriate steps. In addition, local historians note that the land to the front of the George includes the site of a historic well, and an undercroft, so archaeological advice should be sought.  It is also important that the bank of unlisted land between the car park and the well-used, surfaced path beneath it (public footpath Salehurst 43b) is not compromised by any construction or change in planting.  This bank has always been maintained by the neighbouring residents (including of the George Inn) in order to maintain its appearance, but also its stability.

Loss of Parking and Impact on Village Life

We object to the proposed reduction in parking places.  This will have a significant impact on village life.  The current car park is used for deliveries, hotel guests, staff and pub users.  Pre application advice suggests there is sufficient village on-street and car park parking for The George.  This is not correct.  On-street parking places are in high demand with frequent change of vehicles each day.  In fact, empty spaces along the whole stretch of the High Street and Station Road are rare throughout the day. George Hill is already full of cars, particularly at school drop off and pick up and when school events take place.   In addition, places are in high demand at the Station Road car park. This pressure will only increase with the development of Grove Farm, a sizeable development site in the Rother Local Plan opposite The George.  Part of this already has planning permission and the remainder has been included in the Rother Draft Local Plan.

The George Inn is located directly opposite the village school and nursery, so parking and road safety is already an issue at this location, which is at the bottom of George Hill, the only southern entrance to the village.  We always object to applications which result in loss of parking, as per Policy IN1 of the Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Development Plan (SRNDP).   Reducing the available parking will have several negative impacts on local residents, businesses and visitors:

• Increased pressure on High Street and George Hill parking, which is already limited and heavily used by residents, shoppers, and those accessing local services including Salehurst Primary School and Robertsbridge Children’s Services (the village nursery / pre-school).
• Displacement of vehicles into nearby roads, creating congestion and reducing available parking for residents.
• Safety concerns. The proposed parking bay on the rear of the George is at a critical bend opposite the school entrance which has ‘no parking’ chevrons: East Sussex Road Safety will need to review this.
• Accessibility issues, as reduced on‑site parking will make it harder for people with mobility challenges to visit the pub.  This also contradicts one of the stated objectives of the application which is to improve disabled access.

Improvements to the pub garden and access routes should not come at the cost of essential parking provision in a constrained village centre.  We request that RDC insist a thorough parking survey for all times of the day and night during primary and secondary term time is undertaken prior to resubmission of the application, and that adequate on‑site parking is retained.

Loss of Privacy and increased noise resulting from the proposals

NPPF material considerations include the loss of privacy and potential for increased noise and light pollution for residents from extending the current outdoor seating to the northern end of the car park, near the war memorial.  The height of the land in that area means the proposed new seating area, furthest away from the Inn, would directly overlook bedrooms at eye level, and living rooms below for several old cottages at close proximity to the proposed seating.  Because they are listed buildings, these cottages are not permitted to have standard thick double glazing to mitigate noise.  These applications therefore represent an unacceptable loss of privacy and noise disturbance.

This summer there have been noise and behaviour associated complaints about customers in the car park, but we were told by the landlady that this is being dealt with.  It is difficult to see how any appropriate screening could be introduced without impacting the historic setting. Displacing vehicles to surrounding roads will inevitably result in vehicle movements, door slamming and engine noise until the late evening.  We have no objection to improved landscaping to the current seating area which we agree would help to attract pub users but question the need for this furthest seating area.  Why not leave the existing seating in the southern courtyard, which is well used in the summer months, and reasonably secluded, thereby negating the need for the furthest seating on the northern side?  If the courtyard wall was removed as proposed, then the seating would be more visible and inviting from both the South and North entrances.   However, efforts would need to be made to minimise any resulting light and noise pollution for neighbouring properties and the local environment.

Outbuilding

The outbuilding at the rear of the property, which forms part of this application, has already been refused by appeal.  It is regrettable that it has not been removed.  However, we recognise that its use has been changed to reduce noise disturbance.  If Rother is minded to allow it to remain then close attention must be paid to the materials used in order to ensure that is blends in with the main building.  In particular, we question the use of timber cladding. Within the Conservation areas development proposals and extensions and alterations to existing building and structure will be expected to be suitably designed for the context with which they are set… and use traditional and vernacular building materials to respect the context of the development concerned”. (SRNDP Policy H06 Conservation Areas).

Other facts to consider

In addition, we wish to highlight the following facts about the application:

1. As already stated, the application is ambiguous as to whether and where parking is to be included on site, making it confusing and misleading.
2. It is not clear from the application that there is already a sizeable rear courtyard garden with seating. This, in addition to the already expanded seating at the front of the inn, could provide enough outdoor seating if rearranged with more attractive landscaping. We are not against removal of the courtyard wall as it is not part of the original listed building. We do not believe the proposal to extend the front garden to near the war memorial would result in a significant net increase in outdoor seating capacity if the southern beer garden were removed.
3. There is already disabled access via the rear garden gate, a fact which is not acknowledged or highlighted in the application. Such would have been a requirement of previous alterations (construction of George Close), and has been opened on request for a number of years.
4. There is an incomplete business case. It is not known whether the proposed increase in garden seating would automatically increase sales, although we acknowledge it may make the Inn more attractive. Just removing the brick wall of the southern beer garden and redesigning the area next to the front of the building could be sufficient.
5. We find it difficult to establish from representations made online which comments are submitted by those who understand the full impact of these proposals bearing in mind the material error in the plans.
6. Finally, our District Councillor, Cllr Prochak, as direct neighbour to The George Inn is not permitted to call in this application in order to highlight residents’ concerns to Officers or Councillors, or even delegate this action to another District Councillor. We believe this to be wrong and that it puts us at a distinct disadvantage. Why are we being discriminated against for having a representative who lives at the heart of our community? We respectively ask that consideration of the application(s) acknowledges that we would have requested our District Councillor to ‘call in’ the application, for it to be considered by RDC Planning Committee.   6/10/26

Hackwoods Bungalow, Willards Hill, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5ET

Accessible Entrance Ramp and Steps with Porch to Provide Protection from Weather

Support Approval by RDC

The Parish Council has no objections to the application.  3/8/26

Hairfayre, 22A High Street, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5AQ   [Formerly Mustard]

Application to demolish existing structure. Replacement shop with apartment above.

Support Approval by RDC.

The Parish Council considers the design to be good and in keeping with the High Street.  We recognise that it would need careful oversight throughout demolition and rebuilding with regard to keeping the highway clear and accessible. 3/8/26

65 Heathfield Gardens, Robertsbridge, TN32 5BD

Proposed two storey extension to side of existing dwelling

General Comment:

The Parish Council has no objections in principle but has a concern over any loss of off-road parking.  We expect RDC to consider this. 3/8/26

Hodsons Mill Northbridge Street, Robertsbridge, TN32 5NY

Hybrid planning application comprising:

(1) Full planning permission and Listed Building Consent for works including the demolition of the Grade II listed Oast House and the construction of a new building on its site incorporating retained or reused historic fabric to provide residential dwellings; together with the conversion of the existing mill building (a non designated heritage asset) to provide residential dwellings, with the ground floor accommodating either community, commercial, or retail floorspace; and the formation of the primary vehicular and pedestrian access, associated highway works, floodplain compensation, and enabling infrastructure;

and (2) Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved except access) for residential dwellings, together with access, landscaping, drainage, and public open space

Support Approval by RDC
The Parish Council strongly supports the application for this site, which is the largest development site in Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Development Plan. Development of this brownfield site has the backing of the vast majority of residents. Homes England have consulted at length with our community and taken on board our concerns.

To date only one resident has objected on the Rother planning portal, and we feel their concerns, including the location and height of buildings and viewlines to the site, have been addressed. We note the objection of the Environment Agency but believe this is a generic response that does not take into account previous discussions between Homes England and the Environment Agency including the reasoning behind Homes England modelling including closure of a culvert under the mill.

The Parish Council would object to any proposals to increase numbers beyond the 125 dwellings in this proposal. In addition, we expect a robust transport management plan to be produced by any developer during construction for residents in Northbridge Street, which in turn impacts traffic flow in the whole village. We also question the need to enhance bus stop provision by the construction of additional bus stops; the existing ‘Rutley Close’ bus stops are important for serving our residents across the A21 in Salehurst as well as those in Northbridge Street. On the North side we believe the bus company would not be happy to have an additional stop so close to the existing one which we do not wish to lose. On the South side there is already a Parish Council owned bus stop shelter and there is no need to move this valuable asset and no space to do so nearer the Mill Site. 9/7/26

Browns Farmhouse Johns Cross Road, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5JG

Change of use from holiday let to annex. No works required.

Support REFUSAL by RDC
The Parish Council objects to this application until it is determined why use of the annexe, which was granted as a special concession due to personal medical needs, has evolved into a holiday let. The Parish Council was not aware that the annexe was being used as a holiday let, and there appear to be other buildings on the same site used as holiday lets. 6/7/26

Grove Farm, George Hill, Robertsbridge, TN32 5AZ

Variation of condition 3 imposed on RR/2022/1850/P to exclude the
commencement of works below ground

Support Approval by RDC
The PC supports this application; it believes these works are vital to investigate and establish appropriate drainage / water works. 6/7/26

Hodsons Mill Northbridge Street, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5NY

Listed Building Consent for works including the demolition of the Grade II listed Oast House and the construction of a new building on its site incorporating retained or reused historic fabric to provide residential dwellings; together with the conversion of the existing mill building (a non designated heritage asset) to provide residential dwellings, with the ground floor accommodating either community, commercial, or retail floorspace. (In association with the hybrid planning application RR/2026/0600/OUT).

Support Approval by RDC
The Parish Council strongly supports this application. Retention and conversion of both the Mill Building and Oast House are very important to our community. The proposed conversion is attractive and complies with Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan policies EN5 Historic Environment, EN6 Listed Buildings and Ancient Monuments and EN7 Locally important historic buildings and other structures. 6/7/26

6 High Street, Robertsbridge, TN32 5AA

Replacement of the existing conservatory with a single storey extension to the Kitchen to create a garden room, removal of the window and door frames between the kitchen and garden room lowering of the window cill by 1 brick and replacing the kitchen units.

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application, provided the Planning Officer is satisfied with the proposals. 1/6/26

6 High Street, Robertsbridge, TN32 5AA

Replacement of the existing conservatory with a single storey extension to the Kitchen to create a garden room, removal of the window and door frames between the kitchen and garden room lowering of the window cill by 1 brick and replacing the kitchen units.  [Listed Building Consent Application]

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application, provided the Planning Officer is satisfied with the proposals. 1/6/26

Freeman Forman, 55 High Street, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5AN

Telecommunications Notice - Installation of 120m external and internal cabling.

No comment required from the Parish Council

Bourne Farmhouse, Bourne Lane, Salehurst, East Sussex, TN32 5PT

Proposed new Steel Framed Building For Use As Manure Store

Prior Approval not required 21/5/26 - for information only

Honey Plum Farm, Beech House Lane, Salehurst, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5PN

Retrospective application for erection of deer fencing and gates.  [Amended plans submitted July 2026]

Amended Plans:

Support Refusal by RDC.

The Parish Council strongly objects to the amended plans and reiterates our previous objection to this application, which still stands. 3/8/26

Support REFUSAL by RDC

Further to our objection to previous applications including RR/2025/58/FN, the Parish Council is extremely disappointed that this planning application proposes development on this contentious rural site protected by Article 4 Direction within the High Weald Landscape. For over twenty years we have repeatedly expressed our concerns about development on this land. Furthermore on principle we disapprove of retrospective applications.

If Rother is minded to approve this application we ask that measures are put in place to ensure close monitoring of activity on the land.  If it is found that activity on the land is not appropriate we would expect enforcement action to be taken. 1/6/26

Boarsney Farm, The Stage, Salehurst, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5SR

Part demolition and conversion of agricultural buildings to create 9no. residential dwellings with associated cycle/bin stores, parking, landscaping and amended vehicular access

Support REFUSAL by RDC

The Parish Council strongly objects to this application.  We believe there are no policies in Rother Local Plan or Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Development Plan which support it.  The proposal appears to be to convert a working farm into a housing estate. It is inappropriate development  within the rural High Weald setting and is not included as a site for development in the Rother Draft Local Plan 2025-2042.   Finally it is not a sustainable development; it has no immediate services.  12/5/26

Mallard, Bishops Lane, Robertsbridge, TN32 5ED

Proposed single-storey rear extension with part first-floor addition.

General comment

General Comment

We note the objections made by the neighbour and ask that Rother looks very carefully at these, particularly potential impact on their property. 1/6/26

Church Farm House Church Lane, Salehurst, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5PJ

Replacement of patio doors in rear extension.

Support Approval by RDC

The Parish Council has no objections to this application provided the Rother Planning Officer is happy to approve the application.

26/3/26

7 Oakland Drive, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5EX

Works to Trees

General Comments

The Parish Council wishes to protect all trees with TPOs in Robertsbridge, particularly those which have long standing TPOS which is the case for these 3 trees.  We support pollarding of these trees to ensure their longevity provided the Rother Planning Officer is happy with the application.  We would not support coppicing or removal of the trees.27/3/26

Church Farm House Church Lane, Salehurst, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5PJ

Repair of study and drawing room floor joists.

Support Approval by RDC

The Parish Council has no objections to this application provided the Rother Planning Officer is happy to approve the application.

26/3/26

Phoenix House, 5 Pelham Walk, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5BP

Proposed works to the following trees: T1: Willow - pollard to a point below two large limbs. T2: Golden Cupressus - remove tree and replant with evergreen viburnum

For information only - no comment required

Robertsbridge United Reformed Church, High Street, Robertsbridge, TN32 5AQ

Conversion of a Grade ll Listed Chapel to Residential Use

Support approval by RDC

Robertsbridge United Reformed Church, High Street, Robertsbridge, TN32 5AQ

Conversion of a Grade ll Listed Chapel to Residential Use

Support approval by RDC

Honey Plum Farm, Beech House Lane, Salehurst, TN32 5PN

Application to determine if prior approval is required for the erection of an agricultural storage building

Farming Application - For notification only

Robertsbridge Junction Station, Station Road, Robertsbridge, TN32 5DG

Variation of condition 2 imposed on RR/2020/2493/P to amend the dimensions of the engine shed.

Support Approval by RDC
The Parish Council has no objection to the application. 5/1/26

Rother Valley Railway Northbridge Street, Robertsbridge To Junction Road, Bodiam

Variation of conditions 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 & 11 imposed on RR/2021/2598/P to amend the pre-commencement restrictions in relation to level crossing works.

Support Approval by RDC
The Parish Council has no objection to the application itself but it is critical that any works on the Clappers must be undertaken and completed outside of term time to avoid disruption to bus services used by school pupils. 5/1/26

47 Mill Rise, Robertsbridge

Erection of single storey rear extension Retrospective

General Comment
The Parish Council has no objections to the application, however on principle we disapprove of retrospective applications. 1/12/25

Trough Wood, Hurst Green, TN19 7PX

The erection of a workshop and agricultural store with ancillary office space to support land management and research activities across the wider landholding, together with associated works for a temporary period of 10 years.

(This application is on the edge of the Parish, close to the boundary with Hurst Green Parish).

This application is being reconsidered September 2026 under same application number with the following description:The erection of a workshop and agricultural store with ancillary office space to support land management of the wider site as a BNG landbank site, together with associated works for a minimum period of 30 years.  There is a change in the application description to better clarify what is proposed, and an amendment to the location of the proposed building.

General Comment
The PC has no objection to the application as it stands on the grounds that it appears to be a worthwhile application for the land at the rural boundary of our Parish. Although the application is to construct buildings on open land we can see that the applicant proposes to include new planting which will reduce the visual impact of the buildings. It is very important that RDC satisfy itself that the building itself is constructed to be as sympathetic to the surroundings as possible (Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy EN3 Countryside Protection and the Parish’s place within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 'Development will only be permitted where it conserves or enhances the natural beauty of the Parish and has regard to the High Weald AONB Management Plan.') and that conditions are imposed to ensure it is only used for the purposes described in the application. Any extension to the 10 year duration must be subject to a new planning application. 5/1/26

Corner of Knelle Road, Robertsbridge, TN32 5DZ - Land at

Outline: Erection of two chalet bungalows and garages with new vehicular access (all matters reserved).

General Comment

The Parish Council has no further comment to previous application RR/2021/1328/P. 4/11/25

53 High Street, Robertsbridge (Senlac Vets)

Re-roofing and guttering works to Grade II Listed Building

Support Approval by RDC
The Parish Council has no objections to the application. 1/12/25

Heathfield Gardens, Robertsbridge - Land to the South of

Erection of 42no. residential dwellings together with asssociated acess, parking, landscaping and infrastructure.

Support REFUSAL by RDC
The Parish Council supports development on this allocated site as part of the Neighbourhood Plan. We have no issues with the proposed number and mix of dwellings which include much needed affordable housing in the village. The street scenes provided by the developer appear to be well thought out and we would like to see these reflected in the final construction.

However we do have serious concerns regarding the following:

1.Runoff from the site. Will surface runoff / drainage from the site be improved beyond the SUDS statutory minimum? The Parish Council strongly urges Rother to ensure surface run off is actually reduced rather than simply maintained at current levels. This would reflect the overwhelming scientific evidence that we can expect increased levels of rainfall in future which will only exacerbate the existing shortage of drainage capacity across the village. In the case of this development there are particularly severe problems already with runoff from Heathfield Gardens into Bishops Lane and potentially impacting other properties on Brownes Lane.
2.Sewerage. We have been told by some residents that there have been a number of incidents where the sewerage capacity has been exceeded. It is essential that any works done are in compliance with statutory obligations e.g. SUDS.
3.Access onto George Hill. What steps are proposed to ensure safe access for vehicles onto and off the site? Will speed limits be adjusted for the new entrance to maintain safety. Please note the peak hours for traffic in Robertsbridge particularly on George Hill are at the beginning and end of the school day (peak evening hours are not 5-6pm as the traffic survey suggests).
4.Ecology. Is Rother content with the proposals regarding preservation of fauna and flora (see biodiversity reports and ecology section in planning statement)? We are disappointed that any loss of biodiversity on the site could be offset by creating habitats offsite that are most likely not within the village or within the district. Our tree warden has advised us that more habitats could be built into the scheme on site to reduce the shortfall, especially as there is a good amount of green space included within the site. She has found it difficult to access the planting schedules on the new planning portal which we have also found problematic. As well as mainly native trees we would wish to see a few specimen non-native trees at key areas as features, to reduce the impact of native trees being lost to disease, including some trees with brighter green / yellow leaves against crimson to bring some contrast.

We have also received comments that some of the new properties may overlook and impinge on the privacy of existing dwellings on Heathfield Gardens. It is important that where applicable practical steps are taken to minimise any loss of privacy.

We believe that if the application is approved it would be very useful for the developer to repeat the public engagement of late 2024 to enable some of these issues to be discussed and hopefully resolved. 9/10/25

Salehurst Vicarage, Land at Fair Lane, Robertsbridge TN32 5AS

Original application in 2024 was for Demolition of existing mission hall and vicarage and the erection of 11no. new build dwellings (4no. 2-Bedroom, 4no. 3-Bedroom, 3no. 4-bedroom houses) with the creation of a new vehicle access from Fair Lane and associated parking and landscaping.

Amended plans submitted 9/25 - Comments by 30/9/25. New plans amended to
Demolition of existing mission hall and vicarage and the erection of 10no. new build dwellings (4no. 2-Bedroom and 6no. 3-Bedroom houses) with the creation of a new vehicle access from Fair Lane and associated parking and landscaping. Parish Council granted an extension to submit comments by 7/10/25

Amended plans submitted 11/25 - Comments by 2/12/25. Changes to design of 4 properties facing Fair Lane; Changes to internal layout to 6 properties not facing Fair Lane; Consultation on ecology, drainage and financial viability reports.

Comments pending on amended plans November 2025.

See latest comment October 2025 below.

Comment on original application June 2024:
Support REFUSAL by RDC
Whilst the Parish Council accepts the principle of development on this land, it objects to the scale and specifics of the proposal, reflecting opinion of a sizeable number of local residents who attended our Parish Council Planning Committee meeting and commented on Rother D.C. website. In addition there are inaccuracies in the detail of the application which should be noted. Furthermore the application documents state that the developer has engaged in early ongoing liaison with the Parish Council which is not true.

The Parish Council recognises that the land is a preferred site for residential development within the Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Development Plan (SRNDP) Policy HO2: Site Allocations. However, the SRNDP suggests 6-10 dwellings, with Policy HO4: Housing Mix requiring an element of single level dwellings and where appropriate, sheltered accommodation to meet the needs of the elderly and people with disabilities, to enable them to remain in the community. The Parish Council shares the disappointment of local residents that the Diocese has not made any effort to enable or include such housing, which would be ideal for this site. What we envisaged on the site was a smaller number of smaller properties than what is proposed in this application, perhaps sheltered accommodation for elderly residents.

The location of the site, off one of the oldest and narrowest medieval village lanes, is inappropriate for the number and size of properties proposed in this application. The topography of the site would mean the proposed two-storey dwellings would dominate and impose on the existing properties in Fair Lane, many of which are Grade II Listed, and within the Conservation area. This is contrary to the SRNDP, which seeks to protect our conservation areas. Policy H06: Conservation Areas states: 'development proposals will be required to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of those areas...ensure that the scale and massing of buildings relate sympathetically to the surrounding area'. Policy EN5: Historic environment supports this further, stating that listed buildings and conservation areas will be preserved and enhanced. Policy HO5: Design requires developments to be appropriate to their location; the Parish Council does not believe this proposal is. Without question the nature of the road would be fundamentally changed by this proposed development, with new housing design dominating over historic housing.

Fair Lane already has significant access and parking issues on a daily basis. Any net loss of parking spaces due to increased parking restrictions (at the access) would add to these problems. The size and scale of this development would impact on these existing issues, both during and after construction, and it is possible that construction traffic and the proximity of construction could damage existing dwellings, some of which have no foundations. The Parish Council considers the current proposal to be overdevelopment of a small, constrained site. The size and scale of the proposal is not consistent with the SRNDP, and not consistent with RDC policies on affordable housing, with none included in the proposals.

The Parish Council considers the proposed number of on-site parking spaces to be inadequate and the suggested increased traffic movements to be unrealistic; in addition, no account is taken of likely delivery/service vehicle traffic.

Surface water run-off / drainage from the site, due to the height and topography, currently detrimentally affects houses on the High Street. The Parish Council consider the mitigation / SUDS proposals to be inadequate and suggests they should improve, rather than just seek to equal, the current position.

Inaccuracies have been found in a number of the reports submitted to support the application. Background information refers to the Seven Sisters Pub, not the correct Seven Stars (currently closed). The transport assessment is flawed; the nearest train station is Robertsbridge, not Etchingham as incorrectly stated. And we are served by only one regular public bus service, the 1066; many of the services mentioned are school services, without public access. Residents have questioned the robustness / accuracy of the ecology report as they report sightings of bats and barn owls; this needs to be checked.

Our local tree warden has submitted her comments, which we support; she raises questions on why the developer proposes to remove valuable mature trees (walnut, Indian bean tree and sweet gum). Plan J21 381_Arb_TPP is misleading as it highlights just one red Category U tree marked for removal and yet other trees are shown with a dotted grey line as to be removed, but this information is lost on the plan. Residents believe that construction traffic will result in removal of some trees on Fair Lane. The development is at odds with the 'Green to the Core' focus of Rother's draft local plan.

The Parish Council is very concerned that there is no provision in the current application for access to Wesley Cottage. The current resident has a licence to cross the application site, and notwithstanding any legal or ongoing status of this, it doesn't change the fact that the property would be 'landlocked' by the new proposal, with no adequate access (pedestrian or vehicular) for emergency vehicles such as fire engine or ambulance. The two footpaths leading to the property are extremely narrow, and certainly not suitable for a pushchair, mobility scooter or wheelchair.

To summarise, the Parish Council considers this particular proposal to be over development of a small, constrained site in the historic conservation area. It is supported by a number of reports which are clearly inaccurate. We therefore object to the application. 2/9/24

Comment on amended plans 2/25:
Support REFUSAL by RDC
We note the amended site layout, plans and elevations loaded onto RDC website on 6/2/25. Changes include reducing the number of 4 bed properties by increasing the number of 3 beds, and associated amendments to landscaping and parking spaces. As a preferred site for residential development in Salehurst & Robertsbridge Local Neighbourhood Development Plan the Parish Council accepts the principle of development on this land. However the amended proposal still does not comply with our Neighbourhood Plan, in particular the need to respect the historic nature of the location. Our objections remain as follows:

1.Without doubt the proposal is overdevelopment of a small, constrained site. There are too many dwellings, a maximum of 7 would be acceptable at this location.
2.It clearly does not respect the historic conservation area. This is a very historic lane with listed dwellings leading to Robertsbridge Abbey. New dwellings cannot be permitted to face Fair Lane. The topography of the site means any new properties facing the road would be out of place and dominate the street.
3.There has been no attempt to improve the housing mix to ensure it includes single level and sheltered housing which the community needs.
4.Less than 2 parking spaces per house are included which is clearly not adequate; on road parking on a small site would be inevitable.
5.Access to Wesley Cottage is unclear; there is no explanation of the space beside this property.
6.Has surface runoff / drainage from the site been improved? Rain gardens are included but no explanation.
7.There has been no correction of inaccuracies in a number of reports submitted to support the application.
8.Our local tree warden, Caroline, Knight, has submitted her comments on the amended plans which we support. The plans do not make it clear what new trees are included and whether ponds are proposed to channel water into the rain gardens? Rain gardens on their own will not be effective. 3/3/25

Comment on amended application October 2025:
Support REFUSAL by RDC
Although we accept the principle of development on this allocated site in Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Development Plan we strongly object to the nature of this proposed development. The changes outlined in the amended plans (a reduction from 11 to 10 dwellings, associated changes in layout and increase in parking spaces) still do not address the valid objections of local residents outlined in comments on Rother Planning Portal and at our Parish Planning Committee on 6th October 2025.

The Parish Council believes this is overdevelopment on a very historic lane within the conservation area of Robertsbridge village. Although we note the reduction from 11 to 10 properties and elimination of 4 bed units there has been no attempt to change the layout and overall nature of the development in response to objections made by the Parish Council and residents.

Our objections remain as follows:

1.Without doubt the proposal is overdevelopment of a small constrained site. There are too many dwellings, a maximum of 7 would be acceptable at this location.
2.It clearly does not respect the historic conservation area. This is a very historic lane with listed dwellings leading to Robertsbridge Abbey. New dwellings cannot be permitted to face Fair Lane. The topography of the site means any new properties facing the road would be out of place and dominate the street. In addition residents are very concerned about the potential impact during construction on existing historic housing in Fair Lane which do not have foundations.
3.There has been no attempt to improve the housing mix to ensure it includes single level and sheltered housing which the community needs.
4.Although parking spaces have been increased it is still the case that less than 2 allocated parking spaces per house are included which is clearly not adequate; on road parking on a small site would be inevitable. In addition there will be a loss of existing parking spaces on Fair Lane itself during and after
construction. Residents must be reassured that emergency service access to Fair Lane and Fayre Meadow will be maintained at all times during any construction works.
5.Access to Wesley Cottage remains unclear; there is no explanation of the space beside this property.
6. Will surface runoff / drainage from the site be improved beyond the SUDS statutory minimum? The Parish Council strongly urges Rother to ensure surface run off is actually reduced rather than simply maintained at current levels. This would reflect the overwhelming scientific evidence that we can expect increased levels of rainfall in future which will only exacerbate the existing shortage of drainage capacity across the village.
7.There has been no correction of inaccuracies in a number of reports e.g. location of nearest train station and nature of bus services submitted to support the application.
8.Our local tree warden, Caroline Knight, has advised us that serious issues remain.. For example there are 14 new trees marked on the new plan, but there is no documentation that tells us what species these are. The number of trees to be removed seems to be 10 individuals plus seven groups of trees, plus two dead trees (still important as habitats), so still seems to be far short of equalling what is being lost. The Biodiversity Net Gain figure has not been reached, the report says there will be a loss of 42.73% overall, which is a long way short of the +10% that we believe is required. Plans also show removal of the mature walnut, Indian bean and Liquidambar (sweetgum) which we mentioned in our previous response. We object to losing mature trees for construction / garden space. 6/10/25

High House, (Previously known as Adams Platt), High Street, Robertsbridge TN32 5AQ

Proposed side extension to form porch and internal alterations.

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application. 6/10/25

65 Mill Rise, Robertsbridge

Single storey rear extension

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application. 6/10/25

7 Oakland Drive, Robertsbridge

Extending existing decking to rear of property constructed in 2010 under application RR/2010/1368/P by building up existing blockwork on existing walls and foundations to the level of existing decking, doing away with existing steps and erection of handrail.

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application. 11/9/25

Land Near Bishops Lane, Robertsbridge, TN32 5BX

Development of the site to create 41 new dwellings including 39% affordable housing, with associated landscaping, amenity space, parking and provision of public open space.

Amended Plans July 2025 – in response to ecology reports and comments made by High Weald AONB as consultee. Comments to Rother by 27/8/25

2025 Comment (August)
Support REFUSAL by RDC

The Parish Council (PC) objects to this application for the following reasons:

The Parish Council strongly reiterates its objection to development of this site, further to our comments on 15th July 2022 and 19th March 2024. Our position reflects comments made to the Rother planning portal (as of 19th August 2025) and the views of residents attending the Parish Council Planning meeting on 18th August 2025. All comments remain unanimous in their objection to the application.

Our fundamental objections remain that:

1.The site is outside the village development boundary and was not allocated in the Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan(SRNDP). It would be undemocratic to permit development on this site when other sites in the Plan have already gained permission or are in the process of doing so, including Hodson's Mill our largest site which is being developed by Homes England. As a community we spent significant time and money to create a robust neighbourhood plan with sensible development sites. This location is not one of them. Granting permission for this site would completely undermine the purpose of having a neighbourhood plan in the village, and fail to recognise the principles of the Localism Act 2011. The government inspector who approved the plan in 2018 accepted our position that Bishops Lane should not be included in the SRNDP subject to the Mill Site being developed. Homes England have recently confirmed to us that the various studies they have commissioned since purchasing the site indicate that the original site plus the adjoining Open Field site are viable and they expect to proceed at a future date.

2.Bishops Lane is a historic and narrow sunken drovers' lane which cannot cope with current traffic let alone additional traffic. We disagree with the safety audit. It is not safe for development and in an attempt to make it appear safe the application proposes to widen the access to the site with “a generic junction design and new pavement [which] would significantly damage the character of Bishop’s Lane in the AONB" [comment by High Weald AONB Unit consultee}. It would fundamentally alter this historic lane at the heart of Robertsbridge village. It is extremely difficult to envisage how construction traffic will navigate the site when only a limited part of the road is being widened. See below.

3.Ecology reports confirm there are significant numbers of dormice and reptiles on site which are at risk from the development. Amended plans show increased planting is vital to offset the loss of wildlife habitats. A robust management plan in perpetuity would be essential (see below) to ensure biodiversity is maintained. In addition, to preserve wildlife the proposal stops public access to the lower areas of the site, near the Darwell stream which is disappointing given the limited access for the public to any river or stream within Robertsbridge. An opportunity to enhance the lives of local residents, thus making the site more attractive to them, has been denied.

We wish to add the following comments to our previous comments submitted in July 2022 and March 2024:

1.Devine Homes have not provided plans to show how they propose to abandon or divert the public sewer, and whether there will be impact on properties in Willow Bank.

2.It is not clear if the gas pipeline close to the site entrance has been taken into account and whether the proposed electricity sub-station is sited at a safe distance from existing housing.

3. Plans by East Sussex Highways (February 2024) show the road would widen Bishops Lane to 6 metres at the access to the site with a 2 metre pedestrian footpath and an extra interior footpath which emerges onto a dangerous bend in the road, and a new pedestrian crossing on George Hill. Even if the wide bell mouth provided adequate visual splays how will the whole lane cope with the increased traffic? Especially as the lane is narrow, winding and suffers from running surface water and ice from Heathfield Gardens down to Brownes Bridge. There have been a number of accidents over time at Brownes Bridge leading to frequent repairs to the brickwork and this development would only increase the risk. Residents feel that the application should include visual plans of the extent to which the lane will change in character. In addition, the proposed transport plan must be shared with the community.

4.The amended plans do not make any attempts to protect loss of light and privacy to existing properties backing onto Bishops Lane, with the upper storeys of the new properties directly overlooking the existing properties in Bishops Lane.

5.Tree planting will not be possible in the northern corner of the site, due to the Darwell reservoir pipeline crossing the field.

6.More information is needed on how the attenuation pond will function and be maintained in perpetuity (see comments re. management plan above) The pond is likely to be boggy and sometimes contain water which may constitute a risk to children. Planting at the pond could help to offset loss of habitats (see 7 below) as well as improve safety.

7.The net biodiversity audit confirms that measures are needed to protect the ‘significant’ wildlife in turn affecting the layout of the site. This includes planting of hedgerows outside individual properties -how will these be protected over time? Who will regularly mow the paths and prune the hedges? (see comments re. management plan above). Our Tree warden has suggested that rather than securing offsite habitats to offset the loss of 5.4 habitat units (-20.39%) on site it would be better to increase the habitat potential on the site itself, to include more habitats within back gardens or around the attenuation pond. More wildlife in Cornwall will not maintain or improve the quality of life for residents of the village!

8.In terms of housing mix more affordable shared ownership properties would be preferable to affordable rented properties.

9.If RDC is minded to approve this site then it will be imperative that every effort is made to minimise the visual impact of the site as seen from the various viewpoints. 18/8/25

Station Road - Land North of, Robertsbridge

Variation of Condition 2 imposed on RR/2023/27/P for amendments to the housing development, amendments to the doctors surgery and the phasing of the development.

Changes to surgery and housing mix/layout since original application RR/2023/27/P. Comments to RDC by 27/87/25

Support Approval by RDC

The Parish Council has no objections to the application. We fully support this amended application. The developer has confirmed to us that if the step lift at the surgery were to break down there is alternative access to the building for those who require assistance entering the building. 18/8/25

Linden Lea, Brightling Road, Robertsbridge TN32 5DR

Single storey rear and side extensions and proposed rear first floor dormer

Support Approval by RDC

We note the proposed changes go close to the property boundary however, in the absence of any objections from neighbours, we support the application. 18/8/25

Oak Farm Oast, Beech House Lane, Salehurst, TN32 5PN

Proposed extension to existing stable block to provide wet room.

Support Approval by RDC

The Parish Council supports the application to provide a wet room for private use. If Rother is minded to approve the application we trust that permission would be granted on condition that the building would be used exclusively for private use as specified in the application, and not for ancillary overnight / holiday / residential accommodation, or for commercial use. 4/8/25

Wycheways, Bugsell Lane, Robertsbridge

Alterations and extensions to existing dwelling including single storey rear extension, replacement extension to front projection and partial raised eaves extension at first floor. Erection of 4 bay car port/garage.

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of objections from neighbouring properties the Parish Council supports the application. 29/8/25

Hackwoods Bungalow, Willards Hill, Robertsbridge TN32 5ET

Outline Application for the erection of up to two wheelchair accessible self/custom build dwellings with all matters reserved except for access.

Support REFUSAL by RDC

The Parish Council strongly objects in principle because this application to build two new properties goes against local policy. The proposal is both outside Robertsbridge development boundary (defined in Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Development Plan) and also in the countryside within the protected High Weald Landscape (AONB). Furthermore it is also located on a busy rural winding lane which could make access dangerous. The site has already been rejected by Rother District Council in the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). It is not clear from the application if the
two new dwellings would be separate to Hackwoods Bungalow. If the application did proceed we would expect conditions that the new bungalows be ancillary to the main building. On the basis of information provided we do not support the application. 2/6/25

3 Church Terrace, Church Lane, Salehurst

Listed building consent application for RR/2025/707/P

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council supports the application. 2/6/25

3 Church Terrace, Church Lane, Salehurst. TN32 5PH

Proposed single storey rear extension to replace modern conservatory, replace plastic dormer window with timber and composite front door with timber, and removal of shed to facilitate conversion of existing outshut to home office and internal alterations.

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council supports the application. 2/6/25

George Inn, High Street, Robertsbridge TN32 5AW

Proposed repair of timber porch canopy where possible with replacement if required.

Support Approval by RDC

The Parish Council has no objections to the application provided suitable materials are used for a building located in the conservation area of the village. 2/6/25

Stable Works, Climsetts Farm, The Stage, Salehurst TN32 5SP

[Amended plans to earlier application RR/2025/235/P in 2025]

Widening of class B2 use to allow vehicle repairs and MOT testings (class B2)

Same comments as submitted earlier for RR/2025/235/P. Requested further information on changes.

6 and 7 Darwell Close, Robertsbridge, TN32 5NN

Erection of porch.

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application. 16/5/25

Jolly Cottage, Langham Road, Robertsbridge, TN32 5DT

Installation of an Air Source Heat Pump to the side of the property.

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council supports the application. 2/6/25

Parsonage Farm, Church Lane, Salehurst

Change of use of former meat cutting room and cold store to Class E use and associated works.

Support Approval by RDC

The Parish Council has no objections to the application. 2/6/25

Holly Cottage, Poppinghole Lane, Salehurst TN32 5BJ

Erection of new entrance porch, single storey extension on West elevation, two storey extension on North elevation, new pitched roof over existing extension on South elevation with alterations to fenestration, detached garage and driveway.

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of objections from neighbouring properties the Parish Council supports the application. 29/5/25

Browns Farm Shop, A21,TN32 5JG

Demolition of shop and construction of a mixed use building to contain a commercial unit and residential dwelling. Parking, landscaping, drainage and other associated works. Use of access route to A21.

Support Approval by RDC

The Parish Council has no objections to this application which amends the earlier application RR/2024/603/P. We note that advice has been taken to change the design so that the dwelling is reduced in size and more extensive evidence has now been provided to show that the existing farm shop is unviable. In addition public comments are in support of the application. 29/4/25

6 Langham Road, Robertsbridge

Proposed single-storey side and rear extension, internal and external alterations including demolition of existing extension and garage.

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application. 29/4/25

Stable Works, Climsetts Farm, The Stage, Salehurst

Variation of conditions 1 and 2 imposed on RR/2015/1061/P to widen the B2 use to include all vehicle repairs and MOT testing and to amend the hours of operation.

General Comment

The application includes evidence which suggests all vehicle repairs are already occurring at this site which would make this a retrospective application The Parish Council always objects in principle to retrospective applications. In the application's favour we are not aware of any objections from neighbours which suggests the application merely regularises ongoing activities and the business provides local employment. 31/3/25

1 Glenleigh Walk, Salehurst/ Robertsbridge

Demolition of conservatory and new single storey rear extension. New front door and side lights.

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application. 29/4/25

Bantony, Silverhill, Robertsbridge TN32 5PA

Erection of dwelling

Support REFUSAL by RDC

The Parish Council objects in principle because this application to build a new property goes against local policy. The proposal is both outside Robertsbridge development boundary (defined in Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Development Plan) and also in the countryside within the protected High Weald Landscape (AONB). A full planning application with pre application advice is needed. We would expect any development to fit in with the rest of Bantony Manor, a listed property. If the application did proceed we would expect conditions that it be ancillary to the main building of Bantony Manor and could not be sold separately or rented out. 31/3/25

Anroca, Northbridge Street, Robertsbridge

Proposed off street parking space with private pathway to join existing pathway to Anroca

Support Approval by RDC

In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application. We would expect the parking area surface to be permeable. 3/3/25

Honey Plum Farm, Land lying to the East of Beech House Lane, Salehurst

Erection of building for processing and storage. (Farming Application)

Support REFUSAL by RDC

The Parish Council is extremely disappointed that this planning application proposes development on this contentious rural site protected by Article 4 Direction within the High Weald Landscape. For over twenty years we have repeatedly expressed our concerns about development on this land.

If Rother is minded to approve this application we ask that measures are put in place to ensure close monitoring of activity on the land for the purpose of ensuring that any buildings constructed for the purpose of engaging in agricultural activity are indeed used for that purpose. If it is found that this is not the case then we would expect enforcement action to be taken. It would be helpful in this context if RDC could inform us what would be considered to constitute agricultural activity. 3/2/25

Wicks Platt, Bishop's Lane, Robertsbridge

Installation of four ground-mounted solar panel arrays (24 panels in total) on 'Cornish rocker' bases.

Support Approval by RDC
The Parish Council has no objections to the application, subject to the proposed hedging being planted and retained for as long as the panels remain. 19/12/24

2 Pipers Cottages, 75 High Street, Robertsbridge

Proposed replacement windows.

Support Approval by RDC
The Parish Council has no objections to the application; we support the use of 'appropriately designed heritage windows'. 19/12/24

Salazac, Langham Road

UPVC orangery with GRP flat roof and lantern to side elevation

Support Approval by RDC
In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application
8/4/24

36 Mill Rise, Robertsbridge TN32 5EG

Hornbeams - Coppice

Support REFUSAL by RDC
The Parish Council objects to coppicing on the few remaining mature hornbeams on this bank. We are concerned that it could set a precedent for other houses that border the bank which would change the nature and character of the lane and deplete the amenity value that the trees provide. If RDC is minded to approve this application the Parish Council would only support pruning back to 5 feet lower than the more recent cut points by a suitably qualified tree surgeon who will ensure these trees can regrow and the bank of this historic sunken lane is not compromised. 8/4/24

Land near Bishops Lane TN32 5BX (Amended Plans to original application in 2022)

Development of the site to create 41 new dwellings including 39% affordable housing, with associated landscaping, amenity space, parking and provision of public open space.

Support REFUSAL by RDC

The Parish Council strongly objects to this application, reflecting comments made to the Rother planning portal (as published up to 11th March) and the views of residents attending the Parish Council Planning meeting on 4th March 2024. As was the case for the original plans all comments are unanimous in their opposition to the application. We recognise that the developer has taken steps to reflect suggestions made by the Parish Council to make the site more appealing to the local community but, as we have previously made clear, our fundamental objections remain that:

1. This site was not allocated in the Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan (SRNDP), reflecting strong resident objections at the time. Residents gave a clear mandate to the plan, voting 760 to 81 in favour of adoption on 31 May 2018. The CPRE (consultee letter 20 July 2022) quoted the SRNDP examiner in their objection to the application: “I consider that the preference for the Mill Site over Bishops Field is a legitimate expression of local views, which is at the heart of neighbourhood planning, I will not be recommending the amendment for the development boundary to include that site”…the CPRE state that ”the conclusion therefore has to be that any granting of permission for Bishops Fields would amount to the traducing of the principles of having a neighbourhood plan in the village, and a failure to recognise the principles of the Localism Act 2011”. The Parish Council endorses these comments by the CPRE.

2.Bishops Lane is a narrow country lane with pinch points and bends typical of those in the High Weald Landscape (AONB) with no pavements and steep verges. Residents are very concerned about any increase in traffic both during the construction phase and in the longer term. To make it safe the vehicular access requires large sections of the historic hedgerow to be removed and the proposed exit of the pedestrian path onto Bishops Lane close to Brownes Bridge is both highly dangerous due to the restricted visibility of eastbound traffic and unlikely to be used by those walking down Bishops Lane from Heathfield Gardens. We would suggest that all those present at a Rother site visit stand at the proposed vehicular and pedestrian exits onto Bishops Lane at peak times when Robertsbridge Community College opens or closes for the day. Traffic surveys are now dated and we do not know if they went ahead when the College was open. Also we are aware that with longstanding highway maintenance issues in Station Road and Brightling Road, high volumes of traffic use Bishops Lane as a cut through. Furthermore, Brownes Bridge is repeatedly damaged by lorries along with lorries repeatedly getting stuck under the railway bridge travelling west. It is difficult to see how large construction vehicles will safely access the site.

3.The development would close the green gap between existing housing, damaging the beauty of the High Weald Landscape. The High Weald AONB Unit have objected (consultee letter 23rd July 2022) on 3 grounds: it will result in loss of a medieval field system; detract from the enjoyment of users and proposed access to the site will require significant disturbance to soils and landform resulting in an alien urban feature in this rural historic routeway”. The Parish Council endorses these comments by the High Weald AONB Unit

4.There would be a risk to wildlife habitats (potentially including endangered species) from both development and subsequent flooding. Any wildlife surveys must be updated to reflect the current position.

5.Residents have queried if the gas pipeline close to the entrance to the site has been taken into account in the plan and whether the proposed electricity sub-station is sited at a safe distance from existing housing.

If Rother were to approve the application we would suggest some minor amendments to the tree planting: T26 (the red oak) should not be trimmed back to the boundary; the old abattoir building should be marked in some way; and it would be good to include some fastigiate trees near the road e.g. use some fastigiate trees near the road for flowers and autumn leaf cover, such as Sorbus Autumn Spire, Amalanchier Obelisk, flowering cherry Prunus Spire or Prunus Sargentii Rancho. The maximum width at maturity is 3 metres. These will have flowers and autumn leaf colour. In addition, one or two double flowered native cherries which do not bear fruit would give some flowers in the main planting. 19/3/24

1 Council Cottages, Hilltop, Brightling Road, Robertsbridge, TN32 5EH

Two storey rear extension, enclosure of front porch, alterations to side door and windows.

Support Approval by RDC
In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application. 4/3/24

Highgate House, Brightling Road, Robertsbridge, TN32 5EU

T1 - Oak - Remove dead wood. two lower branches reduced by 10-15 metres. Long thin branch over building 2, reduce my 10-15 metres.
T2 - Oak - Remove deadwood. One branch between
T1 & T3 should be reduced by 10 metres.
T3 - Oak -Remove deadwood. Reduce canopy by 5-7 metres.
T4 - Oak - Reduce canopy by 10-15 metres (50%).
T5 - Oak - Reduce by 3-5 metres.
T6 - Oak - Reduce the canopy by 10-12 metres (40%-50%).
T7 - Oak - Remove deadwood. Reduce lower two branches by 3 metres.
T8 - Oak - Remove deadwood. Reduce lower branch by 3 metres.
T9 - Oak -Remove deadwood. Two large branches reduced by 5-10 metres.

Support Approval by RDC
The Parish Council has taken the advice of the local Parish tree wardens and has no objections to this application to reduce the size and remove the deadwood of these oak trees. 4/3/24

Beech House Lane - Land lying to the East of, Salehurst TN32 5PN

Construction of deer fencing and laying of road plannings (topped with topsoil & grass seed) on farm track. (Part retrospective)

Support Refusal by RDC
The Parish Council strongly objects to this application, on the back of ongoing enforcement. This is not appropriate use of this agricultural land protected by Article 4 within the High Weald Landscape. 4/3/24

Russet Farm, Redlands Lane, Salehurst TN3 5NG

Proposed single storey rear extension

Support Approval by RDC
In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application.
4/3/24

Climpsetts Farm, Stable Works, The Stage, Salehurst TN32 5SP. Also listed application RR/2024/59/L

Repairs to curtilage listed barn

Support Approval by RDC
In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application, provided the Conservation and Planning Officers are satisfied with the proposals.4/3/24

Bushbarn Cottage Silverhill, Robertsbridge TN32 5PA

Proposed Single storey Lodge as overflow accommodation to replace existing single storey Timber Summerhouse, on very similar footprint.

Support Approval by RDC
The Parish Council has no objections to the application however it would like to see a condition that the lodge building remains ancillary to the main building. 4/3/24

Butts Cottage, Beech House Lane, Salehurst TN32 5PN

Proposed Gardner's outside WC and potting shed

Support Approval by RDC
In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application. 5/2/24

Bourne Farm, Bourne Lane, Salehurst TN32 5PT

Application for the prior approval of the erection of a steel framed portal building with open sides

Farm Application. Listed for notification.

Quercus Cottage, Poppinghole Lane, Robertsbridge TN32 5BL

Demolition of conservatory and erection of single storey rear extension.

Support Approval by RDC
In the absence of comments from neighbours the Parish Council has no objections to this application. 5/2/24

Honey Plum Farm, Beech House Lane, Salehurst, Robertsbridge, East Sussex, TN32 5PN

Retrospective application for erection of deer fencing and gates.  [amended plans/business plan submitted July 2026].

Support Refusal by RDC.

The Parish Council strongly objects to the amended plans and reiterates our previous objection to this application, which still stands:

“Further to our objection to previous applications including RR/2025/58/FN, the Parish Council is extremely disappointed that this planning application proposes development on this contentious rural site protected by Article 4 Direction within the High Weald Landscape. For over twenty years we have repeatedly expressed our concerns about development on this land. Furthermore on principle we disapprove of retrospective applications.

If Rother is minded to approve this application we ask that measures are put in place to ensure close monitoring of activity on the land.  If it is found that activity on the land is not appropriate we would expect enforcement action to be taken.”

3/8/26