Council approves controversial Rother ‘Wunderhaus’ home

On Thursday (March 14), Rother District Council’s planning committee once again approved proposals to build a two-bedroom dwelling — described as a ‘carbon negative live/work space’ known as the ‘Wunderhaus’— on land at Beech Farm near Sedlescombe.

The scheme had come back to the committee after a previous approval of the scheme was quashed as a result of application for a judicial review.

While recommended for refusal at the time, the scheme was initially granted planning permission in July 2022 as committee members felt it qualified for an “exceptional design” exemption to rules otherwise intended to limit development of open countryside.

The applicability of this exemption — found in paragraph 84 clause E of the National Planning Policy Framework — formed a significant part of the more than four hours of discussion the committee took to make its decision this time around.

Jonathan Vine-Hall, a former district councillor and one of the applicants behind the scheme, argued the proposals did qualify for the exemption. He said: “The Wunderhaus is truly outstanding because it delivers an exemplar level of performance and sustainability and it is not just about what it looks like.

“It reflects the highest standard in architecture, winning four major awards including the international Red Dot for Architecture, judged by over 50 architects, designers and engineers. Only the outstanding and exceptional can win these awards.

“To respond to the objectors, this unique, gold standard, one-off Wunderhaus is not in any way a kit house, prefabricated, factory-made or mass-produced.”

The committee heard from a wide range of speakers, both those who supported and disputed Cllr Vine-Hall’s argument.Views among committee members were equally split, with several arguing that the scheme’s environmental credentials meant the scheme qualified for the “exceptional design” exemption

Others argued that the scheme did not fulfil all the requirements set out in paragraph 84(e) of the NPPF, so did not qualify.

Among those to make this argument was Tim Grohne (Con), who said: “I think there is no doubt that this building is exceptional in a way, in terms of its environmental, ecological credentials. But so is the AONB. When a house gets old … [it] gets pulled down and can be replaced, you can’t do that with the AONB.”

He added: “I think that this house actually satisfies some [of the tests of the exceptional design exemption], but as the barrister here has confirmed they need to be all satisfied. We cannot pick and choose among 84(e) and it is not all subjective.”

Ultimately, the question was put to the vote, with Cllr Jimmy Stanger (Ind) proposing the committee approve planning permission on the grounds that the scheme qualified for the exemption set out in 84(e).

This proposal resulted in a split vote, with six members in favour and six against, leading to committee chairman Brain Drayson (Ind) using his casting vote to dismiss Cllr Stanger’s motion.

The scheme was approved on different grounds. This alternative motion, put forward by Cllr Christine Bayliss (Lab), relied on different parts of the NPPF, which puts a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.

Some objectors have hesitantly welcomed this distinction, arguing the non-application of paragraph 84(e) granted stronger protections against similar developments elsewhere.

This is notable as the previous planning decision had sparked protests from a group of parish councils, who argued the application of 84(e) eroded protections against development both within the High Weald National Landscape and elsewhere.

One of these councils — Ticehurst Parish Council — put forward its concerns in the form of an application for a judicial review, which eventually led to the original planning decision being quashed.

The result of the judicial review hinged on Cllr Vine-Hall’s participation in the previous meeting. He had been both the council’s lead member for strategic planning and planning committee chairman at the time, but spoke only as an applicant during the meeting.

This point had been conceded by the council, meaning the other grounds put forward in the judicial review, including the applicability of 84(e), were not tested in court.

Cllr Vine-Hall is no longer a member of Rother District Council, but remains a councillor currently serving as chairman of Sedlescombe Parish Council.

Committee members had also been set to consider a similar but separate application for the same site. This applicant, in which Cllr Vine-Hall’s son was the sole applicant, was withdrawn on the morning of the meeting.

Both applications had been recommended for refusal by planning officers due to its location and potential impact on the High Weald landscape. Officers also argued neither application qualified for the exceptional design exemption.

For further details of the proposals, see applications RR/2022/840/P and RR/2022/2690/P on the Rother District Council website.