Full council to debate Rother seafront planning application

One of the town's biggest talking-points for years has broughtcouncillors out in outright opposition to the authority's own planning application.

A ding-long 45-minute debate in Rother planning committee yesterday morning saw officers and members again locked in argument over the application to excavate at the rear of the Colonnade and create six shops and restaurants.

The application is the keystone to Rother's 5.1m Nextwave proposal for seafront regeneration.

A battle royal can be expected at the September 29 council meeting when the authority's highly contentious planning application is put before the full council.

At its last meeting, the planning committee was constantly reminded that it could consider the issue solely on its planning merits '“ not the commercial viability of the scheme.

At yesterday's meeting, ex-Mayor Cllr Paul Lendon moved a further deferment, arguing that to make a decision before the public had opportunity to comment on Nextwave at next month's consultation exhibition was "putting the cart before the horse."

As yesterday's debate became more and more heated, committee chairman Cllr Brian Kentfield had again to remind members that they had to deal with the council's application exactly as they would any private applicants.

Head of planning Tim Hickling repeatedly told members who raised issues such as flood risk, ventilation, vehicle access and fire exits that such matters were "detail" which would be dealt with as conditions of planning permission.

Members' frustration came to a head with Cllr Deirdre Williams moving that the application be rejected "on the grounds that we are not happy with what has been presented to us."

Chief executive Derek Stevens was sitting in on a debate which also saw prominent objectors to the scheme listening from the public gallery.

Cllr Williams asked: "How are you going to get people out if there is a fire when there is no exit at the back?"

The debate had been interrupted on several occasions by officers conferring with the chairman.

Cllr Williams angrily told the chairman: "I feel you and the officers are being obstructive about our views and our opinions."

Cllr Kentfield told her: "I don't intend to be obstructive. I have to ensure that this is processed on planning grounds."

Cllr David Vereker argued: "The committee should be allowed to have an opinion!"

He had been advised earlier that he could not comment on the scheme's commercial viability. He rejoined:"If we were going to give permission to an outside developer '“ of which I know there are none '“ to lose his money that is one thing. But this is taxpayers' money."

The meeting was told that a ventilation duct would run behind the commercial units and that the extractors would vent from near re-built steps at either side of the Colonnade.

Officers said there were no plans for any ventilators above the level of the lawn behind the Colonnade.

But councillors were not satisfied and wanted assurances.

Members were concerned about the flood risk and the scheme's need for stop-boards to prevent sea water and shingle washing into the units.

They were concerned about the disruption when large amounts of soil were excvated.

They were concerned about delivery vehicles using the promenade.

Cllr Williams said: "This is a promenade '“ in other words a place for walking on. You might as well turn it into a road!"

The debate ended when Mr Hickling used his powers as head of planning to refer the application to full council to determine.