Land north of Bishops Lane, west of Willow Bank, Robertsbridge

Decision

dismissed, 16 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: G Sylvester

Authority

Rother (South East)

Appeal reference

6005903

Application reference

RR/2022/1379/P

Procedure

written representations

Development

41 dwellings (39% affordable) with landscaping, public open space and new access through a sunken-lane bank

Homes

41

Site context

settlement edge, national landscape, rural lane, near station

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.04 years

Housing Delivery Test

35%

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

N4, N2(1), DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(1)(j), S5(2)

Development plan policies

Rother Core Strategy 2014 OSS2, RA3, EN1, Rother DaSA 2019 DEN1, DEN2, DIM2, Salehurst and Robertsbridge NDP 2018 EN3, HO1, High Weald AONB Management Plan

Main issues

landscape and scenic beauty of the High Weald National Landscape

Summary

41 homes (39% affordable) on an arable field at the edge of Robertsbridge in the High Weald National Landscape, in a district with a 3.04-year supply and a 35% HDT score. Dismissed. The scheme met S5(1)(j) and was accessibly located, but the urbanising effect on the field and the loss of a historic sunken-lane bank for the access junction harmed the National Landscape. Given "greater than substantial weight", that harm substantially outweighed substantial housing benefits. DP3(3) was also invoked as a refusal policy.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The main parties have commented on the relevance of the revised National Planning Policy Framework … All references to the Framework are to the revised version" (DL ¶2).
• Landscape and NL — N4 / N2(1): FAIL. The access "would require an opening to be cut through the raised embankment creating a relatively wide gap that would disrupt its continuity and diminish the sunken lane's sense of enclosure … a distinctly engineered appearance" (DL ¶22). The new houses would have "a comparatively more noticeable and strident appearance than the existing dwellings" (DL ¶19). Not major development in NL terms (DL ¶24), but the scheme "would fail to conserve its statutory purposes and special qualities" (DL ¶27).
• Consultee/officer support. Officers and design/landscape consultees supported the amended layout; the inspector disagreed (DL ¶¶17, 40).
• S5(1)(j): PASS. "would be a form of development that meets the terms of Policy S5(1.j.i)" (DL ¶41).
• S5(1)(h): FAIL. "the evidence does not demonstrate that the station would be a 'well-connected station' within the Framework's definition" (DL ¶42).
• Transport TR3/TR4/TR8: PASS (DL ¶45).
• DP3(3): FAIL. "the conflict with paragraph 1 of Policy DP3 would not be justified by the benefits of the proposal. Consequently, the proposal would fail to comply with Policy DP3 and in the circumstances specified in paragraph 3 of the Policy, planning permission should be refused" (DL ¶49).
• Local plan strategy. The locational strategy "appears to be contributing to the current shortfall"; the inspector would give the locational conflict very little weight, but landscape policy conflict alone puts the scheme in conflict with the plan as a whole (DL ¶¶32-33).

Planning balance

S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance: "I have given substantial weight to the overall benefits … Nevertheless, given the importance and weight that I attach to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the HWNL, the harm to the HWNL carries greater than substantial weight against the proposal. I conclude that this harm substantially outweighs the development's benefits … The harm is determinative in this instance" (DL ¶47). Separately, DP3(3) refusal (DL ¶49). s38(6) conflict with plan as a whole not outweighed (DL ¶50).

What made the difference

The access junction. Cutting a wide, engineered opening through the bank of a historic sunken lane (a High Weald Management Plan special quality) turned an otherwise acceptable edge-of-village housing site into significant NL harm. Added to that was intrusion into a swathe of fields visible from well-used rights of way. A site whose access did not breach a sunken-lane bank, with a quieter edge treatment, might well have succeeded given the 3.04-year supply, 35% HDT and agreed accessibility.

Transferable points

• Passing S5(1)(j) with 3.04-yr supply, HDT 35% and 39% affordable can still be "substantially outweighed" by National Landscape harm, which can carry "greater than substantial weight" (DL ¶47).
• N4 harm is weighed even where the scheme is agreed not to be "major development" in a National Landscape (DL ¶¶24, 46).
• Highway engineering (junction, widening, footways) through historic routeway banks is a distinct, significant landscape harm, following the HWMP's "insensitive highway engineering" threat (DL ¶¶12, 22-23).
• DP3(1) conflict arising from landscape harm engages the DP3(3) "should be refused" limb unless there is clear justification (DL ¶¶48-49).
• Being within walking distance of a station is not enough for S5(1)(h); it must be shown to be a "well-connected station" as defined (DL ¶42).
• Supportive officer and consultee advice does not bind the inspector on landscape judgement (DL ¶¶17, 40).
• Drafting slips: "H07 and H08" for HO7/HO8 (DL ¶44); "S5(1.j.i)" and "S5(1.h.)" citation style (DL ¶¶41-42).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Housing land supply about 3.04 years; HDT 35%; about 1400 on the affordable housing register
• Arable field in High Weald National Landscape on the edge of Robertsbridge
• Access would cut through the raised embankment of a historic sunken lane (Bishops Lane), with road widening and new footways
• Officers had recommended approval; HWNL Unit and County landscape architect broadly supportive of amended layout
• Emerging local plan not expected until 2027/2028
• Parties commented on the 2026 Framework

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.