Sussex village battles plan for nine new homes on historic Robertsbridge site
Residents in Robertsbridge oppose demolishing a village hall and vicarage to make way for nine homes, citing traffic, heritage concerns, and strain on local services.
Robertsbridge residents are fighting plans to demolish a village worship hall and a nearby vicarage to make way for nine new homes, arguing the scheme would erode the village’s character and worsen traffic and public services in the area.
Developers originally submitted plans last year for ten homes: four two-bedroom, four three-bedroom, and three four-bedroom dwellings. After intense backlash, the proposals were pared back by one unit on September 8. Locals say the remaining plan would still reshape the hillside village and its way of life. 'It would never be the same again,' one resident said, underscoring fears about traffic, parking, and the loss of heritage assets connected to Robertsbridge’s identity.
Supporters and opponents alike acknowledge the site’s allocation in the council’s neighbourhood plan, but the scale and location of the development have sharpened tensions. Sue Croft, 63, of Robertsbridge, called the proposal 'a nightmare' for access and 'an accident waiting to happen' given the local road layout. Another resident, Ivor Lewis, 81, who lives opposite the site, questioned how emergency vehicles would reach the area if the plan proceeded, pointing to Fair Lane’s status as a narrow cul-de-sac that predates modern traffic.
Rosy Clements, 50, a supply teacher in the area, said she did not object to development in principle but raised concerns about access and the lack of affordable housing. Nick Brown, chair of Robertsbridge Parish Council, described the homes as 'completely out of keeping with Fair Lane' and signaled ongoing concerns about access and capacity: 'There are also a lot of problems with access.' The Lewises added that they had spoken with the local fire brigade about potential access issues, warning that even with modifications, the road could struggle to cope with 22 cars if 11 dwellings were built.
Salehurst and Robertsbridge Parish Council also objected, arguing the proposal constitutes overdevelopment of a small, constrained site, does not respect the historic conservation area, and would leave too little parking. One objection stated that fewer than two parking spaces per house were provided, making on-road parking inevitable. Online comments from other locals echoed worries about damage to existing properties and the vulnerability of foundations during construction.
Peak Developers, which owns Geko Development, said the site is allocated for development in the council’s neighbourhood plan and that extensive pre-application discussions with statutory consultees, including the parish council and county highways, have occurred. The company stressed that the revised plan incorporates road and access amendments designed to improve safety for vehicles and pedestrians compared with the current worship hall access, and that the scheme uses off-site construction to minimize disruption. They also noted the development would be at a very low density, and that the earlier scheme was withdrawn to allow planners and consultees to incorporate significant alterations.
The debate in Robertsbridge touches on broader tensions in rural England over housing growth, infrastructure capacity, and heritage preservation. Proponents say new homes are needed to sustain local services and provide affordable options for residents, while opponents argue that small villages must remain navigable and livable without compromising character or increasing emissions from added traffic. City and county planners compiling reviews emphasize balancing environmental impact, construction emissions, and infrastructure demands with housing supply goals in the climate-conscious era.
A planning decision on the proposal has not yet been announced, and residents continue to submit comments as the process moves forward. The Robertsbridge case illustrates how climate- and environment-focused planning increasingly weighs the greenhouse-gas and resource implications of additional housing against the value of conserving rural heritage and maintaining robust local services.