The application documents
Planning application SDNP/26/03583/FUL, Lidl foodstore, the Brooks Road site, Lewes. Last updated 19 October 2026. Documents reviewed 2 October 2026.
To count, your comment must be made to the South Downs National Park Authority on application SDNP/26/03583/FUL.
There is no closing date for comments. The Authority accepts them until the day the application is decided. Don't leave it, though: the sooner the better.
Every document on the application file is listed here, newest first: 98 in all, 49 reviewed by the campaign and 49 with an AI summary not yet checked. Lidl's documents and the consultee responses link to the Authority's website, where they are published. Public comments are summarised without names; you can read them in full on the Authority's website.
Summaries marked "AI summary – not yet checked" were written by AI and have not yet been checked by the campaign. They may contain mistakes. Reviewed summaries were written with AI help and checked by us. Neither is professional advice.
Each ground carries a rating:
- Strong: Clear conflict with a named development-plan policy, or a significant error, omission or inconsistency that can be shown from the applicant's own documents, on an issue that matters to the decision.
- Moderate: Arguable: depends on judgement, needs further evidence, or is likely to be met by further information.
ESCC Highways
The County Council, as highway authority, objects for three reasons: the parking spaces shown are significantly smaller than its minimum of 2.5 m by 5 m (0.5 m more where a space adjoins a wall or fence); there is no up-to-date Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, needed because the pedestrian routes into the site have changed since the 2025 scheme; and it is unclear whether the accessible entrance lies on the line people would walk from the proposed crossing. It accepts the trip forecasts and junction modelling and says an objection on traffic capacity would be difficult to justify; it accepts 106 parking spaces, against a usual standard of 162, as enough for the forecast peak, and finds 12 customer cycle spaces acceptable. It supports the zebra crossing on Brooks Road. If permission is granted it seeks £111,000 towards bus services, real-time bus information, a full travel plan secured by legal agreement with a £6,000 audit fee, and a service management plan. It does not mention the public footpath across the site.
SDNPA Ecology (SWT Ecology Services)
The Authority's ecology advisers ask for further information before a decision. The biodiversity net gain assessment counts the new hedge as native hedgerow, but the planting plan specifies beech, which the habitat classification treats as non-native ornamental hedgerow; either the assessment must be corrected or the planting changed to mainly native species. Otherwise they note that the ecological appraisal found no significant effects and that the buildings and trees have negligible value for roosting bats, and they say a construction environmental management plan should cover sensitive lighting, bats in the woodland to the east, nesting birds and hedgehogs. They will recommend conditions once the hedge point is resolved.
National Highways
National Highways, responsible for the A27, does not object. It concludes that a development of this scale and location would not have an unacceptable effect on the safety, reliability or operation of the strategic road network near the site, and asks for no conditions. It adds standing advice on net zero and sustainable travel.
- Public comment – objects – 14 October 2026
Objects, by email: traffic at the roundabout, already difficult to join and the scene of accidents; a supermarket out of keeping on the main road into a town with a conservation area; and further harm to local businesses.
- Public comment – objects – 14 October 2026
Objects on four grounds: a tall steel-and-glass box unsuited to the entrance to the town and the setting of listed buildings such as the brewery; more danger to cyclists and pedestrians from cars and lorries, noting there is no road safety audit; illuminated signs and car-park lighting against Dark Skies policy; and loss of High Street trade, citing the applicant's forecast of a 6.1% loss of the town centre's convenience trade.
- Public comment – objects – 13 October 2026
Objects, by email: noise and bright lights from the car park at the windows of homes next to the site, some in a listed building with single glazing, which the landscape buffer would do little to reduce; disruption from demolition and traffic; and, with three supermarkets nearby, that the site would be better used for local businesses.
- Public comment – objects – 13 October 2026
Objects on the public footpath across the site (Footpath Lewes 60): says the layout would obstruct the route at several points and put much of it through the car park and lorry servicing area, that no application document identifies the path or explains how it would be kept open or lawfully diverted, and that this conflicts with policy SD20 and the Authority's Design Guide. Written before the County Council confirmed the order on 2 October 2026.
- Public comment – objects – 12 October 2026
Objects on pedestrian safety at the crossing near the petrol station and on the routes people would walk to the store; on noise from deliveries, plant, cars and trolleys at nearby bedrooms and gardens, early and late; and on whether enough room is left for wildlife habitat. Asks whether the bat surveys and the effect of lighting have been properly assessed.
- Public comment – objects – 12 October 2026
Objects to the loss of trade from independent shops; more traffic, congestion and pollution; a design it sees as poor for the historic town; harm to views of the South Downs, including from the castle; and light and noise from illumination and night-time deliveries.
- Public comment – objects – 12 October 2026
Objects, by email: traffic, pedestrian and cyclist safety and pollution on Brooks Road and Malling Street; the effect on the setting of the conservation area and nearby listed buildings; and the risk to the town centre and its independent shops, where vacant premises are already increasing.
- Public comment – objects – 12 October 2026
Objects, by email: loss of footfall from the High Street and the Precinct, where shops already stand empty; more hold-ups and air pollution at the entrance shared with the existing supermarkets, already hard to leave on foot; and a concern about bus stops on the Phoenix bridge.
- Public comment – objects – 12 October 2026
Objects, by email: calls the building a large box with no connection to its surroundings and asks why supermarkets cannot be beautiful; also more vacant shops in the High Street and more traffic and air pollution.
- Public comment – objects – 12 October 2026
Objects that the store would draw shoppers away from the town centre, that the site could support many more jobs as employment land, and to air pollution from extra traffic.
- Public comment – supports – 12 October 2026
Supports: more choice for shoppers, new jobs, and re-use of a large, largely abandoned site.
- Public comment – supports – 12 October 2026
Supports: would no longer need to travel to Newhaven for Lidl; says Tesco has struggled to cope while Aldi was closed for refurbishment; welcomes the extra customer parking.
- Public comment – supports – 12 October 2026
Supports: says the store would help regenerate the town; asks for 3-hour parking, as at Tesco, so customers can also shop in town.
- Public comment – supports – 12 October 2026
Supports: says the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks; that the site is built-up and derelict and does not affect the National Park; that the new scheme deals well with earlier concerns, especially with its gardens and trees; and that the parking helps the town. Suggests opening the car park to town visitors, as at Tesco.
- Public comment – supports – 12 October 2026
Supports approval, with more trees, the existing trees kept, solar panels and electric-vehicle charging; says more choice brings competitive prices.
SDNP Tree Officer (Connick Tree Consultancy)
The Authority's arboricultural consultant raises no objection, provided the development follows the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement, which he finds acceptable. He records that all four protected trees on the site (T1, T2, T3 and T6) are to be retained and protected, that only low-quality category C and U trees would be removed, and that the new planting compensates for their loss. He recommends no conditions.
Southern Water
Southern Water does not object but asks for conditions. Its records show a 76.2 mm water main and a 225 mm gravity sewer crossing or near the site; nothing may be built or planted within 6 m of the main or 3 m of the sewer without its consent, and their exact positions must be found on site before the layout is finalised. It asks for conditions requiring the developer to agree measures to protect or divert the main and to protect the sewer before work starts; surface-water disposal following the Building Regulations hierarchy, with discharge points and rates agreed by the Lead Local Flood Authority; a drainage system designed to keep flood water out of the sewers; and landscaping near its pipes to be agreed. It confirms capacity for foul drainage and for surface water at 5 litres a second, notes that the site appears to lie in Flood Zone 2/3 with high groundwater, and adds standard advice on connections, trade effluent and oil interceptors.
SDNPA Rights of Way and Access
The Authority's Rights of Way and Access Officer asks for further information and amendments. He says the application does not appear to acknowledge the County Council's order recording a public footpath across the site, or to propose how the route would be accommodated or diverted, and calls this a significant omission given the potential conflict with the layout. Before a decision he asks the applicant to confirm the order's status and alignment with the County Council and to show how any conflict would be resolved. A diversion would need a separate order under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in force before the path is obstructed; planning permission does not itself authorise that. He welcomes the new pedestrian links and the Brooks Road crossing, but notes that 12 cycle spaces is well below the 30 in the pre-application advice. He recommends conditions on pedestrian access, cycle parking and the travel plan. The response describes the order as apparently not yet confirmed; the County Council confirmed it on 2 October 2026.
Conservation Officer: addendum on boundary walls
An addendum to the Senior Conservation Officer's comments (document 2384730), with a site map marking the boundaries of concern. It says walls attached to the listed former brewery are curtilage listed, and that the other boundary walls behind the historic terraces are likely to be of historic merit and worth keeping. Before the application is decided she requires: a method statement for protecting the walls and a schedule of how demolition near them will be done; photographs of the whole length, keyed to a plan; a method statement and materials schedule for any repairs; and sections showing ground levels on both sides, existing and proposed. If any wall is to come down, in whole or in part, she requires a structural engineer's report, a full photographic record of both sides, a method and materials schedule for rebuilding, and plans and sections; masonry walls must be rebuilt like for like, not replaced with fencing. She also asks for a condition that no materials are stored against the walls.
Lewes Town Council – Objects
Lewes Town Council objects. It finds the design much improved for a gateway site and supports the Conservation Officer's comments. It says its earlier concerns have not been addressed: the loss of employment land under policy SD35 and the Brooks Road Planning Brief, which training funding does not offset; the capacity of the Brooks Road mini-roundabout serving three supermarkets and a petrol station, and queues on Malling Hill; a travel plan it considers inadequate; traffic counts on only two days, with no allowance for population growth in places such as Ringmer; and the effect on the High Street, where it suggests parking arrangements like Tesco's as mitigation. It is concerned about four supermarkets in the flood zone and about noise at the loading bay, despite its better position, and notes that another business offering 50 jobs in local food production had agreed heads of terms for the site before it was bought. It welcomes the Brooks Road crossing and the bus contribution, and asks for porous hard surfacing.
- East Sussex County Council: Rights of Way team – objects – 7 October 2026
The County Council's Rights of Way team objects. It says its order records a public right of way across the site (Footpath Lewes 60), that the Design and Access Statement and masterplan do not accommodate it, and that the route shown across the car park bears no clear relation to it. It asks how the footpath is to be accommodated and, if a diversion is proposed, for a plan of the existing and proposed routes. Written before the order was confirmed on 2 October 2026.
ESCC Flood Risk (Lead Local Flood Authority)
East Sussex County Council, as Lead Local Flood Authority, objects because of insufficient information. It accepts that surface water can go to the public surface-water sewer and that the treatment system for car-park runoff is adequate, but finds the drainage design falls short of the National SuDS Standards: the greenfield runoff rate has been applied to the whole site rather than to the hard-surfaced area alone, which overstates the allowable discharge; there is no interception drainage; reuse of rainwater for irrigation has not been considered; and the risk of the outfall being blocked by a surcharged sewer during a storm (flood-locking) has not been tested. It asks whether the detailed drainage design is meant to be approved now or later by condition, and asks to be consulted again when further information is submitted.
- Public comment – objects – 7 October 2026
Objects on traffic and the danger to cyclists and pedestrians on Brooks Road and the roundabout, queues at the nearby supermarket, air pollution, and harm to the historic town and its views at the entrance from the tunnel.
SDNPA Landscape Officer
The Authority's Landscape Officer agrees with the Design and Conservation Officers' comments on landscape design and adds detailed points on planting. She asks for fewer birches and more drought-tolerant, native or better-justified species with broader canopies to shade the large hard-surfaced area, and checks that the plants suit the site's chalky soil. She asks for planting sections for every boundary, more variety in the beech hedge along the site edge, and how the side facing the homes would be maintained and at what height. She also asks for the rain garden's levels and what is intended for a left-over area in the car park. She suggests no conditions.
- Public comment – objects – 6 October 2026
Objects that the scale of the scheme harms views to and from the Downs and the Castle and the nearby conservation areas; to traffic, delivery lorries and pollution; that the job gain is small; and that no diversion has been applied for the public footpath across the lorry turning area.
- Public comment – objects – 6 October 2026
Objects that the new layout puts the customer car park against the backs of neighbouring homes and removes the acoustic screening of the refused scheme; says the noise report does not assess car park noise at the nearest homes, at upper floors, for peak events or indoors, so refusal reason 2 is not overcome.
Conservation Officer
The Authority's Senior Conservation Officer welcomes the scheme's progress, saying earlier concerns about the listed former brewery and the historic terraces have been addressed by moving the store further away, and that the proposals are nearing full acceptability. She lists matters she says must be resolved before the application is decided. Deferring the boundary walls until after demolition is not acceptable: she wants a condition survey of all boundary walls with the northern, eastern and south-eastern neighbours, a protection strategy, a repairs schedule and level sections, and says no underpinning will be permitted. She is concerned about light from the 6 m lamp posts on the eastern boundary at neighbouring homes. She notes a discrepancy in the information on the protected sycamores and cherry tree. She also wants screening for the loading bay, a better brick and bond, a report on the carbon cost of demolition, and re-use of the existing building's materials. Her pre-application comments of 14 July 2026 are appended. Her addendum on the boundary walls is document 2386357.
Environmental Protection comments (second response)
A second response from the council's Environmental Protection team. It recommends a construction environmental management plan and construction hours of 08:00 to 18:00 on weekdays and 09:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays, with none on Sundays or bank holidays. It recommends limiting deliveries, servicing and waste collections to 07:00 to 22:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 17:00 on Sundays and holidays, to protect nearby homes from sleep disturbance; Lidl has asked for 07:00 to 23:00. It adds advice on dust, waste, drainage and asbestos. Unlike the team's earlier response (document 2380999), which objected for lack of a noise assessment and recommended deliveries end at 21:00, it does not state an objection; it does not say whether the earlier response is withdrawn.
- Public comment – neutral – 5 October 2026
Neither objects nor supports. Asks for better pedestrian access from the Cliffe and South Street, and for a s106 contribution towards replacing the Malling Street / Brooks Road roundabout with traffic lights.
- Public comment – objects – 5 October 2026
Objects that a large supermarket, car park, signs and lighting would be out of keeping at a main entrance to the town, next to listed buildings and seen against the Downs, and to the extra traffic. Would prefer housing or another use meeting a local need.
- Public comment – objects – 4 October 2026
Objects that the loss of employment land is still not supported by proper marketing; that the 2025 reasons for refusal (design and heritage, noise and neighbours, legal obligations) are not overcome; that Footpath Lewes 60 is not addressed; and that the traffic surveys from early 2025 may not reflect current conditions. Supports suitable redevelopment of the site.
- Public comment – objects – 4 October 2026
Objects that Lewes has enough supermarkets, and to the extra pollution and the risk to independent shops.
- Ramblers and Open Spaces Society (local representative) – objects – 3 October 2026
Objects that the scheme does not account for the public footpath across the site (Footpath Lewes 60). If the store's footways are meant to replace it, the replacement would be longer and less convenient and would cross the only entrance to a busy car park.
- Public comment – objects – 2 October 2026
Objects on the boundary with the Malling Street homes: the protected cherry tree (T6), which the applicant's documents treat inconsistently; heritage harm already found in the 2025 refusal; and boundary walls left to be reviewed only after demolition.
- Public comment – supports – 2 October 2026
Supports, by email: says Lidl offers good value and choice, that traffic would rise little if at all, that extra parking would help shops and cafés in the Cliffe, and that the empty site would be brought back into use with some new jobs.
Environment Agency
The Environment Agency does not object, provided conditions are attached to any permission. The conditions: the store's floor level is set no lower than 4.50 m above sea level as in the flood risk assessment; no penetrative piling without consent; a contamination remediation strategy before work starts; a strategy for any unexpected contamination; and no drainage that soaks into the ground. It explains that the site lies over a principal chalk aquifer in a drinking-water Source Protection Zone 1, and that the former motor works and made ground carry a medium risk of contamination. It also advises raising electrical fittings above floor level for flood resilience.
Pre-application advice (SDNP/26/01177/PRE)
The Authority's written pre-application advice to Lidl's agent, dated 17 July 2026. It is informal and not binding. It says retail on this employment site is contrary to policy unless a departure is justified, and that a departure could be justified with a relocation strategy for current occupiers, at least £50,000 for economic and town-centre initiatives, and a two-hour customer parking limit. It calls the County Council's footpath order a material consideration of significant weight and asks the application to show how the route could be varied. It lists what the application should include: a landscape and visual impact assessment, a heritage statement, a noise assessment, landscaping and boundary treatment details, a lighting and signage strategy, and a pedestrian desire-lines strategy. It sets standards for cycle parking (15 staff and 15 customer spaces) and electric vehicle charging (one point per five spaces), and places the site in the Dark Skies transition zone.
- Public comment – objects – 1 October 2026
Objects that a third supermarket on the same roundabout is not needed, and that construction would bring months of disruption to people living nearby.
- Public comment – objects – 1 October 2026
Objects on traffic: existing peak-hour congestion on Brooks Road, Malling Street and Phoenix Causeway, made worse by new housing at Old Malling Farm and Southdowns Park; delivery lorries at the mini-roundabouts; and delays to emergency vehicles and buses.
Environmental Health: contaminated land
The councils' contaminated land adviser notes that Lidl's ground investigation found no contaminants above the levels that protect workers on a commercial site. He recommends conditions on any permission: dealing with contamination found during the works, testing any imported soil, an asbestos survey before demolition, and a construction environmental management plan. He adds reminders about asbestos regulations and waste disposal.
Lewes District Council: Regeneration
Lewes District Council's regeneration team comments on jobs and the local economy. It notes that the Planning Statement does not say whether the 40 jobs are full or part time, or give typical contract hours. It asks what the £50,000 town-centre and employment contribution would pay for. It notes that no relocation strategy, with 12 months' support for the businesses now on the site, has been offered, and suggests one if permission is granted. It recommends obligations requiring the applicant to work with local employment and training partners. It does not object.
- Public comment – supports – 29 September 2026
Supports: says the site is a vacant eyesore and new businesses should be welcomed, that extra parking would help shops and cafés in the Cliffe, and that the figure of 2,000 extra cars is unfounded. Supports a 3-hour parking limit as a condition.
- Public comment – supports – 29 September 2026
Supports: says Lewes needs more affordable food shopping and more choice, that the design takes account of its surroundings, and that the store could keep shopping trips within the town.
- Public comment – objects – 28 September 2026
Objects on traffic and safety around the Cuilfail Tunnel, Malling Street and Phoenix Causeway, doubting that customers would switch to public transport. Also raises re-use of demolition materials, groundwater and flash flooding, an inconsistency in the lighting assessment's environmental zone, the bat survey, noise at bedrooms, and the jobs a mix of small businesses could offer instead.
- Public comment – supports – 28 September 2026
Supports: welcomes competition and lower prices, expects little extra traffic and doubts the figure of 2,000 cars a day, and suggests a 3-hour parking limit to help town-centre shops. Sees the current building as unsightly and worries about it standing empty.
Environmental Protection comments
Environmental Protection, Lewes District Council and Eastbourne Borough Council · 4 pages
A consultee response from the council's Environmental Protection team. It recommends objection for insufficient information, because it found no noise impact assessment with the application. It asks for an operational noise assessment and an outline construction management plan, and sets out conditions it would want if permission were granted, including shorter delivery hours and vibration monitoring at the listed Old Brewery. The application file does include an Environmental Noise Report (document 2376064), which the response does not refer to.
Key facts
- The recommendation is objection, on the ground of insufficient information to determine the application. (PDF page 1, Recommendation)
- The officer asks for an operational noise assessment to BS 4142 covering all fixed plant, service yard activity and deliveries, measured against current background noise at the nearest homes. (PDF page 1, 2. Required Submissions)
- The officer asks for an outline demolition and construction management plan dealing with noise and vibration. (PDF page 2, 2. Required Submissions)
- Recommended delivery and servicing hours: 07:00 to 21:00 Monday to Saturday; 09:00 to 17:00 Sundays and bank holidays. (PDF page 2, Condition 2)
- Recommended construction hours: 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday; 08:00 to 13:00 Saturday; none on Sundays or bank holidays. (PDF page 2, Condition 1)
- Continuous vibration monitoring is sought at the boundary with the Grade II listed Old Brewery, with a typical trigger level of 3.0 mm/s. (PDF page 3, Condition 4)
- Air quality will be reviewed separately by the Air Quality Officer; dust suppression and wheel washing are requested for the construction phase. (PDF page 2, 3. Note on Air Quality and Dust)
Points that support objection
Environmental Protection objects: operational noise not properly assessed
The officer objects because no noise impact assessment was found, and points to refusal reason 2 of the 2025 decision. An Environmental Noise Report (document 2376064) is in fact on the application file, and the response does not refer to it, so the objection may be revised. That report assesses deliveries and the car park but says the plant has not yet been specified, so the officer's request for all fixed plant to be assessed is still not met.
Policies: SD5; SD7
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION: OBJECTION (Insufficient Information to Determine)
- PDF page 1, 1. Overview and Core Objection:
no Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) has been provided
- PDF page 1, 2. Required Submissions
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to obtain Environmental Protection's comments on the Environmental Noise Report, including whether plant noise can properly be left to a condition.
- PDF page 1, Recommendation:
Recommended delivery hours are shorter than the applicant seeks
The officer recommends no deliveries, servicing or waste collection outside 07:00 to 21:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 17:00 on Sundays and bank holidays. The reason given is previous noise complaints about deliveries in the area and the risk of sleep disturbance. The applicant's Planning Statement and noise report seek deliveries from 07:00 to 23:00.
Policies: SD5; SD7
Where in the document:
- PDF page 2, Condition 2:
Monday to Saturday: 07:00 – 21:00 hours
- PDF page 2, Condition 2:
Sundays, Bank, or Public Holidays: 09:00 – 17:00 hours
- PDF page 2, Condition 2:
Due to previous noise complaints regarding deliveries to local amenities
What to ask for: Ask that delivery and servicing hours no longer than those recommended by Environmental Protection are imposed by condition.
- PDF page 2, Condition 2:
No demolition noise or vibration plan beside a listed building
The officer says demolition next to the Grade II listed Old Brewery brings a direct risk of structural vibration, and that without a noise and vibration assessment the impact cannot be judged. An outline construction management plan is requested before decision, with a full plan and continuous vibration monitoring secured by condition. No construction management plan or vibration assessment is among the application documents.
Policies: SD13; SD15; SD5; SD54
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, 1. Overview and Core Objection:
introducing direct structural vibration risks during demolition and groundworks
- PDF page 3, Condition 4:
typically a strict Trigger Level of 3.0 mm/s PPV
- PDF page 3, Condition 3
What to ask for: Ask for an outline demolition and construction management plan before the decision, with vibration monitoring that also covers the adjoining Malling Street houses and boundary walls.
- PDF page 1, 1. Overview and Core Objection:
External Lighting Impact Assessment
Dave Dickinson & Associates (DDA), with the lighting layout and calculations by Signify UK · 14/09/2026 · Issue 00 (Issue for Planning Approval); Signify drawing 7166905 Rev 2 dated 11/09/26 · 67 pages
A 19-page report on the outdoor lighting for the store, car park, loading lane and walkways, followed by Signify's layout drawings and 45 pages of calculation printouts. It concludes that the scheme will have no significant effect on light pollution. It designs to an urban or suburban lighting zone (E4 in one section, E3 in another) and does not mention the South Downs National Park, the International Dark Sky Reserve, policy SD8 or the Authority's Dark Skies guidance.
Key facts
- 15 lighting columns, each 6 m high, carrying 19 lanterns: 4 twin columns (8 lanterns of 4,900 lumens), 2 single columns on the east side with a back shield (4,900 lumens each) and 9 single columns of 7,500 lumens. (PDF page 19, Luminaire Schedule, drawing DWG 00)
- 17 wall lights of 3,900 lumens at 3.25 m on the building, tilted 5 degrees around the store and 25 degrees at the plant and loading areas, plus 19 downlights under the entrance canopy at 4.1 m. (PDF page 13, printed page 13, 7.02)
- Column and wall lights are 3000K (warm white). The canopy downlights are 4000K (neutral white). (PDF page 14, printed page 14, 7.03)
- The column lanterns have a 0% upward light ratio (no light emitted above the horizontal) and are tilted 5 degrees. (PDF page 11, printed page 11, 7.01)
- Design targets: car park 15 lux average; canopy 100 lux; delivery lane, rear walkway and plant area walkway 50 lux each. (PDF page 10, printed page 10, 7.00; results at PDF pages 30-44)
- Car park lights are to run 07:00 to 23:00 Monday to Saturday (including bank holidays) and 09:00 to 17:00 on Sundays. Loading bay and rear walkway lights work on presence sensors, with no hours stated. (PDF page 10, printed page 10, 7.00)
- The report says the scheme should meet Environmental Zone E4 (urban, high brightness) in section 5 and Environmental Zone E3 (suburban) in section 7. Its own table of zones lists National Parks under E1. (PDF page 8, printed page 8, 5.01, 5.02 and 7.00)
- Signify's drawings are marked 'PROPOSAL (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)'. Its notes say the design is preliminary, column positions are indicative and Signify has not visited the site. (PDF page 19, LiAS Design Notes, drawing DWG 00)
- The scheme has a total light output of 218,900 lumens and a connected load of about 1.56 kW. (PDF page 30, printed page 8/45, 1.2.1)
Possible grounds for objection
Urban lighting zone used inside a Dark Sky Reserve; zones inconsistent
Section 5 says the scheme should meet Environmental Zone E4, the zone the report's own table describes as town and city centres with high night-time activity. Section 7 says the lanterns were chosen for zone E3. The same table lists National Parks under E1. The report never mentions the South Downs National Park, the International Dark Sky Reserve, policy SD8 or the Authority's Dark Skies Technical Advice Note, although the applicant's Planning Statement (para 4.13) lists that note as relevant guidance with 'zone-based requirements'. The pre-application advice is understood to place the site in zone E1b (transition).
Policies: SD8; NPPF (light pollution and intrinsically dark landscapes)
Where in the document:
- PDF page 8, printed page 8, 5.01:
scheme to meet the limitations of an Environmental Zone E4.
- PDF page 10, printed page 10, 7.00:
Luminaire selections have been made following the ILP guidance notes for Environmental Zone E3
- PDF page 8, printed page 8, 5.01, Table 2 (image)
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require a revised assessment against the zone set for this site in its Dark Skies Technical Advice Note, using one zone consistently.
- PDF page 8, printed page 8, 5.01:
Illuminated signs and light through the glazed shopfront left out
The assessment covers only column, wall and canopy lights. It does not include illuminated signage, although the Proposed Elevations (2376080) show an 'Internally illuminated sign' and the pre-application advice sought non-illuminated signs. It does not consider light escaping through the store's glazing, which the Energy Statement describes as a 'heavily glazed façade facing south-east'. Sky glow is addressed only through the upward light ratio of the lanterns, not light reflected from the car park surface. The canopy lights are 4000K, while the report describes the scheme as warm white 3000K.
Policies: SD8; SD5
Where in the document:
- PDF page 14, printed page 14, 7.03:
Light source colour –Neutral white 4000K
- PDF page 7, printed page 7, 5.00:
Light columns and wall-mounted luminaires fitted with warm white 3000K LED optics
- PDF page 8, printed page 8, 5.02:
Luminaires have been selected that have no ULR.
What to ask for: Ask for one lighting assessment covering all light sources, including signs and internal lighting seen through glazing, and for the canopy lights to match the 3000K used elsewhere.
- PDF page 14, printed page 14, 7.03:
Air Quality Assessment
Air Quality Experts Ltd · September 2026 · Status 3; project code 1024 - Lidl.BrooksRoad.1 · 57 pages
A desk-based assessment of construction dust and traffic emissions. It contains no dispersion modelling: traffic is screened out because fewer than 100 extra vehicles a day are predicted on any road in the Lewes town centre Air Quality Management Area. Construction dust is rated low risk, to be managed through a construction management plan. A damage-cost calculation puts the health cost of the extra traffic at about GBP 9,500 over five years and concludes that no further mitigation is needed.
Key facts
- The site is outside any Air Quality Management Area. The Lewes Town Centre management area, declared for nitrogen dioxide, is about 500 m away. (PDF page 24, printed page 20, 6.3-6.4)
- No dispersion modelling was done. Operational traffic was screened out against a threshold of 100 vehicles a day in or next to the management area. (PDF page 31, printed page 27, 7.9-7.11)
- The assessment uses 264 'net new' vehicle trips a day (132 in, 132 out). Its diagram sends 60% of them to and from the west through the town centre, with up to 79 a day on a single road within the management area. (PDF page 31, printed page 27, Figure 7.1; Appendix B para B.16 (PDF page 52))
- The nearest roadside monitor (Cuilfail Tunnel/Thomas Street) recorded 21.0 micrograms per cubic metre of nitrogen dioxide in 2024, against a legal objective of 40. (PDF page 28, printed page 24, Table 6.3)
- One town-centre monitor, on School Hill, recorded 50.7 in 2024, above the objective and up from 31.6 in 2020. (PDF page 28, printed page 24, Table 6.3; para 6.17)
- Background levels used for 2024: nitrogen dioxide 9.59, PM10 10.05 and PM2.5 6.21 micrograms per cubic metre. (PDF page 25, printed page 21, Table 6.1)
- Construction dust: demolition, earthworks, construction and vehicle track-out are all rated 'small', giving 'low risk' for dust soiling and 'negligible' for health. (PDF page 42, Appendix A, Tables A.2 and A.7)
- Damage cost of the extra traffic over five years: GBP 9,497.67 (central), with a range of GBP 2,617.01 to GBP 30,337.32. (PDF page 53, Appendix B para B.24)
- The report sets GBP 270,000 of scheme costs against that figure, including GBP 135,000 for solar panels and GBP 50,000 for electric vehicle charging, and concludes no additional mitigation is needed. (PDF page 52, Appendix B Table B.1; B.27-B.28)
- The store would be all-electric, so the report finds no emissions from the building itself. (PDF page 32, printed page 28, 7.13-7.15)
Possible grounds for objection
No mitigation offered despite 2025 refusal citing missing air quality contribution
Refusal reason 3 in 2025 included the failure to secure GBP 15,000 towards air quality management initiatives, citing policy SD54 (Planning Statement para 2.10). This assessment does not mention that contribution and concludes that no further mitigation is needed. It reaches that view by setting the damage cost against items the scheme provides anyway, such as solar panels, which do not reduce traffic emissions. It also uses 'rural' road transport damage costs, although it describes the site as north-east of Lewes town centre in a mainly commercial area.
Policies: SD54
Where in the document:
- PDF page 53, Appendix B, B.28:
no additional mitigation measures are anticipated to be required
- PDF page 51, Appendix B, B.11:
due to the rural location of the proposed development site, the Road Transport Rural source sector costs have been used
- PDF page 52, Appendix B, Table B.1:
Solar panels £135,000.00
- PDF page 37, printed page 33, second para numbered 9.1
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to confirm that an air quality contribution will be secured by legal agreement, and to require the damage-cost calculation to be redone with the choice of 'rural' costs justified and without counting measures needed in any case.
- PDF page 53, Appendix B, B.28:
Application form (redacted)
Planning Potential · 14 September 2026 (declaration dated 9 September 2026) · Planning Portal reference PP-15108834 · 18 pages
The standard application form for full planning permission, completed by the applicant's agent. It gives the basic facts of the scheme: floorspace, parking, jobs, opening hours, drainage and ownership. It answers 'Yes' to a rights-of-way change being needed but gives no details.
Key facts
- The form answers 'Yes' to the proposals needing a diversion, extinguishment or creation of rights of way, and 'No' to any new public rights of way being provided. (PDF page 7, Pedestrian and Vehicle Access, Roads and Rights of Way)
- Opening hours applied for: 08:00 to 22:00 Monday to Saturday, 10:00 to 16:00 Sundays and bank holidays. No delivery hours are given. (PDF page 15, Hours of Opening)
- Existing employees: 18 full-time. Proposed: 5 full-time and 35 part-time, stated as 23 full-time equivalent. (PDF page 14, Employment)
- Existing floorspace is 2,847 m2 (car sales and repairs 1,793; clinic 511; offices 543). Proposed is 2,267 m2, a net loss of 580 m2. The sales area is 1,492 m2. (PDF page 13, Non-Residential Floorspace)
- Parking: 89 standard car spaces (69 existing), 6 disabled, 9 parent-and-child, 2 electric vehicle spaces and 12 cycle spaces. (PDF page 8, Vehicle Parking)
- The site is stated to be 0.90 hectares, not currently vacant, and suspected of contamination on all or part. (PDF page 4, Site Area; Existing Use)
- Flood risk: the site is in a flood risk area; not within 20 m of a watercourse; surface water is to go to the main sewer. Foul sewage is to go to the mains sewer. (PDF page 9, Assessment of Flood Risk)
- There are trees on the site and on adjacent land that could influence the development. (PDF page 9, Trees and Hedges)
- The form answers 'No' to hazardous substances, trade effluent and industrial or commercial processes. (PDF page 16, Hazardous Substances)
- Ownership Certificate A is signed: the applicant states it is the sole owner of all the land. (PDF page 17, Ownership Certificates)
Possible grounds for objection
Form says a right-of-way change is needed but gives no details
The form answers 'Yes' to the question whether the proposals need any diversion, extinguishment or creation of rights of way, without saying which. For details it points to the proposed site plan and the Transport Assessment. A text search of both finds no reference to Public Footpath Lewes 60, to East Sussex County Council's Order of 31 July 2026, or to any proposed diversion; the Transport Assessment mentions rights of way only when summarising policy SD20. The Authority therefore has no plan showing which right of way is affected or what is proposed for it.
Policies: SD20
Where in the document:
- PDF page 7, Pedestrian and Vehicle Access, Roads and Rights of Way:
Do the proposals require any diversions/extinguishments and/or creation of rights of way?
- PDF page 7, Pedestrian and Vehicle Access, Roads and Rights of Way:
Please see proposed site plan and Transport Assessment.
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require a rights-of-way plan showing the recorded route and any proposed diversion, and to consult East Sussex County Council's rights of way team before deciding.
- PDF page 7, Pedestrian and Vehicle Access, Roads and Rights of Way:
Job figures on the form undercut the '40 new jobs' claim
The form records 18 existing full-time employees and proposes 5 full-time and 35 part-time posts, stated as 23 full-time equivalent. That is a net gain of about 5 full-time equivalent jobs, not 40. The form also says the site is not vacant, while the Planning Statement describes it as largely vacant with no jobs being generated on most of it. The existing full-time equivalent box is filled in as 0.00, which does not match the 18 full-time staff entered above it.
Policies: SD34; SD35
Where in the document:
- PDF page 14, Employment: Existing Employees
- PDF page 15, Employment: Proposed Employees
- PDF page 5, Existing Use: 'Is the site currently vacant?'
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to establish the current number of jobs on the site and to weigh the scheme's economic benefit on the net figure.
Arboricultural Impact Assessment
Biodiverse Consulting · August 2026 (survey 29 January 2025) · 18 pages
A tree survey and impact assessment to BS 5837. It records six trees and two groups. The three sycamores at the Brooks Road corner (T1 to T3, category A) and a cherry at the south-east corner (T6, category C) are kept; two trees and two groups in the middle of the site are removed. It concludes no protected tree is lost or pruned and includes generic method statements for removing hard surfacing and laying a no-dig path near T1 and T2.
Key facts
- The trees were surveyed on 29 January 2025. The drawings are dated 20/08/2025 (constraints plan) and 20/08/2026 (tree works and protection plans). (PDF page 2, Survey; Limitation; Protections and Designations table (drawing dates on pp3-5))
- Tree Preservation Orders: 'Yes', for T1 to T3 only. The data table says this was 'noted ... by site manager', and the report says the planning authority's online TPO list does not show these trees. (PDF page 2, Protections and Designations table; Appendix A data table (p7))
- T1 to T3: sycamores, 14 m tall, stem diameters 500, 550 and 500 mm, category A, long life expectancy. By the BS 5837 formula their root protection areas have radii of about 6.0, 6.6 and 6.0 m. The report does not tabulate these. (PDF page 7, Appendix A data table)
- T6 (cherry at the south-east corner by no. 50 Malling Street): 5 m tall, stem diameter estimated at 250 mm, category C1, 'access limited'. No TPO is recorded for it. Root protection radius by formula about 3 m. (PDF page 7, Appendix A data table, row T6)
- Removed: T4 (white cedar), T5 (cherry, category U) and groups G1 and G2 in the middle of the site. T5 and G1 are plotted at approximate positions. (PDF page 4, Proposals; Drawing 2 Tree Works Plan (250129D.002))
- 'Third Party Trees: No' and 'Hedgerows: No'. (PDF page 2, Protections and Designations table)
- Special measures are identified only at T1 and T2: removing hard surfacing and a no-dig 'cellular' path inside their root protection areas. At T6 the Tree Protection Plan shows protective fencing on the car park side and nothing else. (PDF page 5, Tree Protection and Mitigation; Drawing 3 (250129D.003))
Possible grounds for objection
Cherry by 50 Malling Street: status and nearby works not assessed
The report records no TPO on T6, and its check of protected status dates from January 2025. The applicant's Design and Access Statement (2377610, PDF p21) labels this tree 'TPO TREE'. The landscape drawings show the brick retaining wall beside it replaced by a flint wall that runs through its root protection area, and the engineering levels drawing (in 2376068, PDF p44) draws new ground contours up to the tree and says levels there are 'to be confirmed'. The report identifies no special measures for T6, and its stem diameter is an estimate.
Policies: SD11
Where in the document:
- PDF page 7, Appendix A data table, row T6:
Multi stem union at 2m; surrounded by shrubs, access limited
- PDF page 2, Protections and Designations table:
Confirmed on site by surveyor (T1 - T3), although the local planning authorities web based TPO list does not note these trees 17.01.2025
- PDF page 4, Effects on designated or protected features:
The proposed development would not result in a loss/pruning of TPO trees
- PDF page 5, Drawing 3 Tree Protection Plan, south-east corner
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to confirm the TPO status of every tree on the site and require a revised tree report that measures T6 and assesses the wall replacement and level changes beside it.
- PDF page 7, Appendix A data table, row T6:
Retaining wall and regrading inside root areas of the TPO sycamores
The report deals only with removing hard surfacing and laying a no-dig path near T1 and T2, and says there will be no level changes in root protection areas. The engineering levels drawing (in 2376068, PDF p44) shows a masonry retaining wall and a 1 in 4 graded bank beside T1, scaled at roughly 3 to 5 m from its stem, inside its 6 m root protection radius. That drawing treats the canopy edge as the root protection boundary. Neither the wall nor the bank is assessed in the tree report.
Policies: SD11
Where in the document:
- PDF page 5, Recommendations: Arboricultural Method Statement:
No soil level changes will occur with retained tree root protection areas unless suitable methods
- PDF page 5, Recommendations: Arboricultural Method Statement:
removal of hard standing within an RPA (T1 & T2)
- PDF page 4, Proposed tree works:
Hard standing removal will require an AMS for removing hard standing upon an RPA
What to ask for: Require a site-specific method statement, agreed before determination, covering the retaining wall, levels, paving, drainage and services within the root protection areas of T1 to T3.
- PDF page 5, Recommendations: Arboricultural Method Statement:
Biodiversity Net Gain Statement and Assessment
Biodiverse Consulting · V1.8 dated 26/08/26 (page footers 08 September 2026) · BIOC24-052 V1.8 · 47 pages
The statutory biodiversity calculation for the scheme. It values the existing site at 0.68 habitat units and 0.28 hedgerow units, rising to 1.66 and 1.49 units after development, which it reports as gains of 146% and 432%. It concludes the legal 10% requirement is met on site with no off-site units. A Biodiversity Gain Plan and a 30-year management plan are left to a pre-commencement condition.
Key facts
- Baseline: 0.68 habitat units and 0.28 hedgerow units. After development: 1.66 habitat units and 1.49 hedgerow units. The gains are +0.99 habitat units and +1.21 hedgerow units. (PDF page 29, printed page 29, 6 Conclusion (tables on pp22-25))
- The three existing sycamores account for 0.59 of the 0.68 baseline habitat units. 0.874 ha of the 0.91 ha site is buildings and sealed surface, which scores zero. (PDF page 22, printed page 22, Table 3)
- The gain comes from: new 'urban trees' (0.42 units), ornamental 'introduced shrub' beds (about 0.33 units), mixed scrub (0.25 units) and three rain gardens (0.03 units, about 130 m2 in total). (PDF page 23, printed page 23-25, Table 5)
- Hedgerow: an existing 35 m hedgerow is removed and 231 m of new hedge is counted as 'Native Hedgerow with Trees' in moderate condition, with the high strategic significance multiplier. (PDF page 25, printed page 25, Table 6; 3.1.2 (p19))
- The baseline survey was on 10 September 2024. The calculation uses the Statutory Biodiversity Metric and its February 2024 user guide. (PDF page 17, printed page 17, 2.3, Table 1; Appendix H para 12.1 (p43))
- The cherry at the south-east corner is recorded as a retained small urban tree in moderate condition, inside the site. (PDF page 21, printed page 21, 3.3.1.4)
- The Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan is not submitted. It 'will need' to accompany a Biodiversity Gain Plan after permission. Monitoring is proposed for 30 years, at years 1, 5 and then every 5 years. (PDF page 27, printed page 27-28, 5.1.2, 5.3)
- Trading rules are stated to be satisfied and no off-site units are needed. (PDF page 25, printed page 25, 4.2.2)
- About 0.655 ha (72%) of the site would still be building or sealed surface after development, down from 0.874 ha (96%). (PDF page 23, printed page 23-24, Table 5)
No grounds are published for this document.
BREEAM Pre-Assessment Report
Enevo (produced for DDA Ltd) · 19/08/2026 · V2; project number 26051 · 31 pages
An early estimate of how the store could score under BREEAM, the building sustainability rating scheme. It predicts 74.05%, which would be an 'Excellent' rating (70% or more), as policy SD48 requires for major non-residential development. No credits have been awarded yet: the score is a list of credits the team intends to target, to be evidenced during design and construction.
Key facts
- Predicted score 74.05% against a threshold of 70% for 'Excellent'. Credits awarded so far: 0.00%. (PDF page 12, Section 6, Design Stage Credit Tracker Summary)
- The report itself advises that about 73% 'should be considered as the minimum target' at this stage, to allow for problems arising before completion. (PDF page 10, Section 4)
- As stated in the report, policy SD48 requires major non-residential development to achieve BREEAM Excellent. A 70% score in the water section is attributed to emerging policy SDN9. (PDF page 4, Section 1)
- Energy: 20 of 21 credits targeted, including all 9 for reducing energy use. (PDF page 19, Appendix A, Ene 01)
- Water: 7 of 8 credits targeted. (PDF page 24, Appendix A, Water Totals)
- A pre-demolition audit credit is targeted, with the audit due at design stages 2 to 3. (PDF page 26, Appendix A, Wst 01)
- Credits not targeted include safe access, surface water run-off rate and volume, watercourse pollution, site security, daylighting and outside space. (PDF page 29, Appendix A, Hea 01, Hea 06, Hea 07 and Pol 03)
- The noise credit is targeted. It requires noise from the building to be at least 5 dB below background at the nearest noise-sensitive property, day and night. (PDF page 30, Appendix A, Pol 05)
No grounds are published for this document.
CIL Form 1: Additional Information
Planning Potential · 9 September 2026 · Planning Portal reference PP-15108834 · 6 pages
The form used to work out whether the Community Infrastructure Levy is payable. It states that four existing buildings totalling 2,847 m2 would be demolished and 2,267 m2 built, a net reduction of 580 m2. It claims all four buildings have been in lawful use for six continuous months in the last three years, which allows their floorspace to be set against the new building. The floorspace totals match the application form.
Key facts
- Existing floorspace 2,847 m2, all to be demolished; proposed 2,267 m2; net change minus 580 m2. (PDF page 4, Page 4 of 6, 6c)
- Four buildings are listed for demolition: Caffyns Lotus Garage (771 m2), Lotus Performance Centre (1,022 m2), The Clinic (511 m2) and Wellers Yard (543 m2). (PDF page 4, Page 4 of 6, 7b)
- Last-occupied dates given: both Lotus buildings 13/06/2026; Wellers Yard 02/03/2026; The Clinic is marked as still in use. (PDF page 4, Page 4 of 6, 7b)
- All four buildings are ticked as occupied for their lawful use for six continuous months within the previous 36 months. No exemption or relief is claimed. (PDF page 4, Page 4 of 6, 7b; 5)
No grounds are published for this document.
Design and Access Statement, Part 1 (introduction, site context and design process)
Whittam Cox Architects · August 2026 · Project ref 240129, Revision E (21.08.26) · 22 pages
The first of three parts of the architect's statement (printed pages 1 to 22). It sets out the three reasons the 2025 scheme was refused, describes the site and its surroundings, and shows the layouts tested before the current one was chosen. It concludes that moving the store to the Brooks Road (west) side, with the car park between the store and the homes and listed building to the east, answers the design and heritage reason for refusal. It does not identify the public footpath across the site, and it contains no assessment of longer views.
Key facts
- The scheme is described as a store of 2,349 sq m gross external area with 1,492 sq m of sales space and 106 car spaces (6 disabled, 9 parent and child, 2 electric vehicle). (PDF page 5, printed page 5, 1.1)
- The three 2025 refusal reasons are reproduced in full. Reason 1 criticised the 'generic, functional form, scale and layout', the large tarmac car park, blank elevations and 'intrusive, utilitarian boundary treatments'. (PDF page 8, printed page 8, 2.1.1)
- The main change from the refused scheme is the store's position. The refused plan (reproduced at printed p8) had the loading dock and plant slab on the eastern side beside the Malling Street homes. The store, plant and servicing are now on the Brooks Road side. (PDF page 21, printed page 21, 3.3.2.1 (Option 03); compare 2.1.1 plan at printed p8)
- The statement accepts that the eastern boundary is shared with homes, and that three sycamores at the south-west corner have tree preservation orders. (PDF page 15, printed page 15, 3.2.2)
- The constraints diagram marks an 'existing retaining wall/boundary treatment' along the eastern boundary and the Malling Street frontage, and marks key views including one labelled 'Malling Down Long View'. (PDF page 17, printed page 17, 3.2.4)
- The chosen block plan (Option 03) has a hand-written label 'TPO TREE' pointing at the tree in the south-east corner next to 50 Malling Street, and beside it a note that a retaining wall may be required, subject to the levels design. (PDF page 21, printed page 21, 3.3.2.1 (Option 03 sketch))
- The statement says the layout was shaped by pre-application meetings and a presentation to a design review panel. The panel's own comments are not reproduced. (PDF page 21, printed page 21, 3.3.2.1)
Possible grounds for objection
Public footpath across the site is not identified
The site analysis has a key entry for existing pedestrian routes, but it draws them only around the edges of the site. The opportunities and constraints page lists the access, the slope, trees and retaining walls, but not Public Footpath Lewes 60, which crosses the site from Malling Street to Brooks Road under an Order made on 31 July 2026. The statement's revisions are dated 6 to 21 August 2026. A right of way that the layout would build over is a constraint the design process should have started from, and the pre-application advice asked the applicant to show how the route could be varied.
Policies: SD20; SD19; SD5
Where in the document:
- PDF page 15, printed page 15, 3.2.2, site analysis map and key ('Existing Pedestrian Routes'):
The western boundary is bound with the Brooks Road providing
- PDF page 17, printed page 17, 3.2.4:
the potential for improved pedestrian access through the site
- PDF page 21, printed page 21, 3.3.2.1:
Pedestrian links across the site from Davey’s Lane to Malling Street.
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require a plan showing the definitive line of Footpath Lewes 60 on the proposed layout, and an explanation of how the route would be kept or lawfully diverted.
- PDF page 15, printed page 15, 3.2.2, site analysis map and key ('Existing Pedestrian Routes'):
Corner tree by 50 Malling Street labelled 'TPO tree'
The architect's block plan labels the tree in the south-east corner as a TPO tree and notes that a retaining wall may be needed next to it. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment records tree preservation orders only on the three sycamores (T1 to T3) and does not treat this tree (T6, a cherry) as protected. The two documents disagree about the tree's status, and the effect of a retaining wall and level changes on its roots has not been assessed on the basis that it is protected.
Policies: SD11; SD5
Where in the document:
- PDF page 21, printed page 21, 3.3.2.1, Option 03 sketch, hand-written notes at the south-east corner (right-hand side of the plan, beside the number 50):
TPO TREE
- PDF page 19, printed page 19, 3.3.2.1, Option 01 sketch, hand-written note at the same corner
- PDF page 15, printed page 15, 3.2.2:
there are three sycamore trees which have tree preservation orders
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to confirm the tree's protected status and to require the tree report to assess the retaining wall and level changes within its root protection area.
- PDF page 21, printed page 21, 3.3.2.1, Option 03 sketch, hand-written notes at the south-east corner (right-hand side of the plan, beside the number 50):
Levels and retaining walls beside the homes are left unresolved
The statement says the site slopes and shows an existing retaining wall or boundary treatment along the eastern boundary. The chosen layout carries a note that a retaining wall may be required 'subject to levels design'. No section through the boundary with the Malling Street and Thomas Street homes is included, so the height of any new wall, and what happens to the existing boundary walls, cannot be judged. Boundary treatment was part of the first reason for refusal and the pre-application advice asked for boundary details.
Policies: SD5; SD12; SD15
Where in the document:
- PDF page 17, printed page 17, 3.2.4, text and diagram key:
The site’s sloping topography, limited
- PDF page 21, printed page 21, 3.3.2.1, Option 03 sketch, hand-written note at the south-east corner
- PDF page 8, printed page 8, 2.1.1, refusal reason 1:
introduction of prominent blank primary elevations and intrusive, utilitarian
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require existing and proposed sections through the eastern boundary, showing levels, wall heights and what is kept, repaired or replaced.
- PDF page 17, printed page 17, 3.2.4, text and diagram key:
A long view from Malling Down is identified but never tested
The constraints diagram marks a 'Malling Down Long View' among the key views of the site. The design process then considers only close views from the surrounding roads and roundabouts. The statement does not show how the larger, taller building would look from Malling Down, Cliffe Hill, Lewes Castle or other high ground. The first reason for refusal cited landscape policy SD4, and the pre-application advice asked for a landscape and visual assessment.
Policies: SD4; SD5; SD6; Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policy HC3A
Where in the document:
- PDF page 17, printed page 17, 3.2.4, sketch diagram (label at the lower right of the diagram) and text:
The possibility of creating views onto and off from the site
- PDF page 21, printed page 21, 3.3.2.1:
views of the historically significant buildings are not obstructed.
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require a landscape and visual assessment with verified views from Malling Down, Cliffe Hill and Lewes Castle.
- PDF page 17, printed page 17, 3.2.4, sketch diagram (label at the lower right of the diagram) and text:
Design and Access Statement, Part 2 (massing, site plan, elevations, materials, changes table, sustainability)
Whittam Cox Architects · August 2026 · Project ref 240129, Revision E (continuation of Part 1; printed pages 23 to 42) · 20 pages
The second part of the architect's statement (printed pages 23 to 42). It explains the sawtooth roof and the mix of flint, brick, timber and dark grey metal cladding, and it includes the proposed site plan, elevations, street scenes and four artist's impressions. A 'Proposed Changes Table' lists comments made on design and conservation and the applicant's replies, shaded green, orange or red. It concludes that the building's scale and design fit the street scene. Requests for muted, non-illuminated signage are not met, and every image is a close view from street level.
Key facts
- The building is up to 9.88 m high at the roof plant enclosure (north-west corner, by the Brooks Road access). The sawtooth roof ridges are at 8.9 m. The entrance canopy is at about 4.1 to 4.9 m. (PDF page 10, printed page 32, 4.2.2 elevations)
- Materials: hand coursed flint, three brick types (dark red, light red, grey/buff), vertical timber cladding, dark grey (RAL 7024) standing seam aluminium, and perspex curtain wall panels on Brooks Road. The roof is a sawtooth profile carrying solar panels. No green roof is proposed. (PDF page 10, printed page 32, 4.2.2 key; see also 3.4.2 and 4.2.4)
- The elevation key lists item 09 as an 'Internally illuminated sign'. It is tagged on the east, south and west elevations. Large poster panels are also drawn on the east elevation, which faces the car park. Signage is said to be for a separate advertisement application. (PDF page 10, printed page 32, 4.2.2 key)
- Plant is on a roof-level platform above the warehouse at the Brooks Road end, on the far side of the building from the Malling Street homes. The delivery ramp is on the north side of the store. Lorries of up to 16.5 m reach it through the car park. (PDF page 6, printed page 28, 4.1.1 and site plan PL-103)
- The site plan (PL-103) shows retaining walls as dashed lines beside the Old Brewery garden, at one point on the eastern boundary and at the Malling Street ramp. For levels it refers to a separate engineering drawing. (PDF page 6, printed page 28, 4.1.1 site plan)
- The Proposed Changes Table has 31 rows: 20 shaded green, 8 orange and 3 red. No key explains the shading, but the green rows read as met, orange as partly met and red as not met. (PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1)
- Red rows: timber pergola-style trolley shelters (no reply given); bespoke signage in muted colours; restricting the number, scale and position of signs and making them non-illuminated. (PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, right-hand table)
- Orange rows: a more bespoke canopy (two rows); screening of the service yard with climbing plants; extra planting strips along the pedestrian route; signage reflecting a gateway to Lewes; robust long-term planting; re-use of timber, glazing or slate from the existing building; further breaking up of plain brick elevations. (PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1)
- Car park lighting is said to be on during opening hours and switched off after the store closes. Two 60 kW rapid chargers and covered parking for 12 cycles are proposed. (PDF page 18, printed page 40, 4.5.2 and 4.5.5)
- The images are four 'concept artist impressions' from street level (the Cuilfail Tunnel roundabout, the Davey's Lane path, the entrance and the Brooks Road pavement) plus street-scene elevations. None is from the Downs, Lewes Castle or Cliffe Hill. (PDF page 7, printed page 29, 4.1.2; also printed pp 30, 31, 36, 37)
Possible grounds for objection
Site plan takes no account of Public Footpath Lewes 60
The proposed site plan and its notes show new pedestrian links from Davey's Lane and Malling Street, but not the existing public footpath that crosses the site from Malling Street (by no. 50) to Brooks Road. On that line the plan shows the eastern car park, parking aisles, the corner of the store and the lorry manoeuvring area. The application form says rights of way would need to be diverted or extinguished and refers the reader to the proposed site plan, yet the plan shows no right of way. The pre-application advice asked the applicant to show how the route could be varied, and policy SD20 protects public rights of way.
Policies: SD20; SD19; SD5
Where in the document:
- PDF page 6, printed page 28, 4.1.1 and Proposed Site Plan PL-103 (no footpath drawn or noted):
Pedestrian access is provided directly from Malling Street and Davey’s
- PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, row 'Site permeability':
Two pedestrian access points and a green access route through the site
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require the definitive footpath line to be drawn on the site plan, with a layout that keeps it open or a diversion that has been properly applied for.
- PDF page 6, printed page 28, 4.1.1 and Proposed Site Plan PL-103 (no footpath drawn or noted):
No landscape and visual assessment; all views are from street level
The building would be up to 9.88 m high in a National Park, on a site the first refusal reason called a key gateway. The statement says its scale fits the street scene and that views from Malling Down would be screened by car park trees, but it gives no evidence for either point. Every image is an artist's impression from the adjoining roads. There are no verified views from Malling Down, Cliffe Hill, Lewes Castle or the wider Downs, and the pre-application advice asked for a landscape and visual assessment.
Policies: SD4; SD5; SD6; Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policy HC3A
Where in the document:
- PDF page 17, printed page 39, 4.4.1 NPPF table, item 13:
screened through tree
- PDF page 9, printed page 31, 4.2.1:
The building’s scale and design align with the existing street scene
- PDF page 10, printed page 32, 4.2.2 elevations (height markers 9880 and 8900)
- PDF page 7, printed page 29, 4.1.2 (caption: 'Concept Artist Impression')
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require a landscape and visual assessment with verified photomontages from agreed high-level and heritage viewpoints, by day and after dark.
- PDF page 17, printed page 39, 4.4.1 NPPF table, item 13:
Requests for muted, non-illuminated signage are not met
The table records requests for bespoke signage in muted colours, for the number, scale and position of signs to be restricted, and for non-illuminated signs. The replies are that branding must follow Lidl standards and that signage will be dealt with in a separate application. Meanwhile the elevations submitted for approval show standard yellow, blue and red signs keyed as internally illuminated, plus large poster panels. Signs need their own consent, but they are part of how the building would affect the conservation area setting and the dark night sky, which was central to the first refusal reason.
Policies: SD5; SD8; SD12; SD15
Where in the document:
- PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, right-hand table, row 'Bespoke signage in more muted colours':
Branding would need to remain consistent with Lidl standards
- PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, right-hand table, row on number, scale, position and illumination:
Signage is shown indicatively at this stage and in proportion with the scale
- PDF page 10, printed page 32, 4.2.2 key:
09 - Internally illuminated sign
- PDF page 10, printed page 32, 4.2.2 key, note at foot:
Signage shown is indicative and will be sought through a separate advertisement application.
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to have signage removed from the elevations or shown as muted and non-illuminated, and to state in any decision that illuminated signs are not approved.
- PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, right-hand table, row 'Bespoke signage in more muted colours':
Other design and conservation requests declined or only partly met
Eleven of the 31 rows in the applicant's own table are shaded orange or red. A more refined canopy is declined on structural grounds. Climbing plants to screen the service yard are said not to be feasible. Extra planting along the pedestrian route is left out to keep space for parking bays. Re-use of materials from the existing building is declined, and a request for more decorative brick and flint work on plain elevations is not taken up. The planting is described by the applicant's landscape architect as a standard retail approach. The table does not say who made each comment or when, and the design review panel's report is not included.
Policies: SD5; SD12; SD15; SD48
Where in the document:
- PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, rows 'More bespoke canopy' and 'Fenestration / design':
The suggested design would not allow for sufficient structural properties
- PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, row 'Service yard and loading area views from access':
is not feasible in this location as there is no suitable planting medium at
- PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, row 'Narrow planting strips':
these have not been included as they would impede
- PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, right-hand table, planting row:
a standard retail approach
- PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, right-hand table, re-use of materials row:
are not considered to be of sufficient quality or architectural value
- PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, right-hand table, last row:
it is considered that the proposed level of brick and flint detailing provides
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to publish the design review panel and conservation comments in full, and to require the outstanding requests to be met before a decision.
- PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, rows 'More bespoke canopy' and 'Fenestration / design':
Taller building with a largely blank, dark north elevation
The first refusal reason criticised scale and 'prominent blank primary elevations'. The new building rises to 9.88 m at the plant enclosure. The north elevation, which faces the site entrance, Davey's Lane and the Old Brewery side, is drawn as an almost unbroken wall of dark grey metal cladding with louvres. The statement itself says the servicing, plant and warehouse block is a large volume needing visual screening. It gives no height comparison with the refused scheme or with neighbouring buildings.
Policies: SD5; SD12; SD15; SD4
Where in the document:
- PDF page 10, printed page 32, 4.2.2, north elevation (height marker 9880) and key items 07, 14, 15
- PDF page 2, printed page 24, 3.4.2.2:
visual screening will be required at the roof plant enclosure
- PDF page 14, printed page 36, 4.3.1, Davey's Lane street scene
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require a like-for-like comparison of heights with the refused scheme and neighbouring buildings, and a redesign of the north elevation.
Lorry manoeuvring is shown across the Davey's Lane pedestrian route
The changes table says the pedestrian route through the site avoids the delivery bay. On the site plan, the lorry tracking lines run from the entrance into the north-east part of the car park, close to the Old Brewery boundary, and back to the delivery ramp. They pass over the marked crossing where the path from Davey's Lane meets the store, beside the parent and child bays. Noise from deliveries was the second refusal reason. The statement gives no delivery hours and does not explain how lorries and people on foot would be kept apart.
Policies: SD19; SD21; SD5; SD7
Where in the document:
- PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, row 'Site permeability':
avoiding the delivery bay
- PDF page 6, printed page 28, 4.1.1, Proposed Site Plan PL-103: vehicle tracking lines north-east of the store, over the hatched crossing:
legal articulated HGV size of 16.5m
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require a layout in which the public pedestrian routes do not cross the lorry manoeuvring area, and delivery hours fixed by condition.
- PDF page 16, printed page 38, 4.4.1, row 'Site permeability':
Design and Access Statement, Part 3 (landscape, access statement and conclusion)
Whittam Cox Architects · August 2026 · Project ref 240129, Revision E (continuation of Part 1; printed pages 43 to 51) · 9 pages
The last part of the architect's statement (printed pages 43 to 51). It compares existing and proposed soft landscaping, shows the planting plan, and sets out how people, cars and delivery lorries would get in and out. It concludes that the design has been refined through the pre-application process to respond to its surroundings. The access statement and its maps do not show or mention Public Footpath Lewes 60, and the access plan shows the lorry route crossing a pedestrian route.
Key facts
- Soft landscaping would rise from 564 sq m to 2,492 sq m, an increase of 1,928 sq m (described as around 340%). (PDF page 1, printed page 43, 5.1.1)
- Planting includes birch, sweetgum, Freeman maple and wild cherry trees, a beech hedge on the site boundaries, native scrub by the Malling Street access and along the eastern edge, and two rain garden strips in the car park. (PDF page 2, printed page 44, 5.1.2)
- Pedestrian access is from Davey's Lane (a new path) and from Malling Street (stairs and a ramp), joining a route along the shopfront. A crossing on Brooks Road is shown as indicative only. (PDF page 4, printed page 46, 6.1.1 (sub-heading 5.1.2 Pedestrian Routes))
- One to two deliveries a day are expected, up to three at peak times, all by 16.5 m articulated lorries, including while the store is open. (PDF page 4, printed page 46, 6.1.1 (sub-heading 5.1.3))
- 106 car spaces: 6 disabled, 9 parent and child, 2 rapid electric charging spaces, with 20% of spaces cabled for future charging. (PDF page 4, printed page 46, 6.1.1 (sub-heading 5.1.4))
- Six cycle stands (12 customer cycles) under the canopy by the entrance. No staff cycle parking or showers are mentioned. (PDF page 4, printed page 46, 6.1.1 (sub-heading 5.1.5))
- The wider pedestrian links map and the access plan show routes around the site and the new north to south path. Neither shows a route on the line of Footpath Lewes 60. (PDF page 5, printed page 47, 6.1.2)
- Two further artist's impressions are included, both from street level: the entrance from the Malling Street crossing and the store from the Brooks Road roundabout. (PDF page 7, printed page 49, 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 (printed p50))
Possible grounds for objection
Access statement omits Public Footpath Lewes 60
The access statement describes pedestrian access only in terms of the new entrances from Davey's Lane and Malling Street. Its access plan and its map of wider pedestrian links do not show the public footpath that crosses the site from Malling Street to Brooks Road, and the words footpath and right of way do not appear. The application form answers yes to the question on diverting or extinguishing rights of way and no to providing new ones, and the pre-application advice asked for a demonstration of how the route could be varied. This statement is where that should have been explained.
Policies: SD20; SD19
Where in the document:
- PDF page 4, printed page 46, 6.1.1 (sub-heading 5.1.2 Pedestrian Routes) and 'Site Plan Demonstrating Access':
As highlighted in the site plan, there are pedestrian access points from
- PDF page 5, printed page 47, 6.1.2, map and key ('Pedestrian Links', 'Pedestrian access')
- PDF page 1, printed page 43, 5.1.1:
Pedestrian routes cut through deeply landscaped areas
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require an access statement and plan that show the footpath's definitive line, and how it would be kept open or diverted, before the application is decided.
- PDF page 4, printed page 46, 6.1.1 (sub-heading 5.1.2 Pedestrian Routes) and 'Site Plan Demonstrating Access':
Lorry route crosses the pedestrian route and family parking bays
The access plan draws the servicing route as a dashed blue line. It runs from the entrance into the car park, then down to the hatched crossing where the path from Davey's Lane reaches the store, beside the parent and child bays, and then back to the delivery ramp on the north side of the store. The pedestrian route is drawn in pink across the same point. The text says 16.5 m lorries can enter and leave easily and safely while the store is open, but it relies on the Transport Assessment and does not address this crossing point.
Policies: SD19; SD21; SD5
Where in the document:
- PDF page 4, printed page 46, 'Site Plan Demonstrating Access': 'Servicing in/out' and 'Pedestrian access' lines cross north-east of the store
- PDF page 4, printed page 46, 6.1.1 (sub-heading 5.1.3):
leave the Lidl site in forward gears, even when the store is open for
- PDF page 4, printed page 46, 6.1.1 (sub-heading 5.1.3):
deliveries per day, with up to three per day at peak periods of the year
What to ask for: Ask the Authority and the highway authority to require a safety review of the lorry manoeuvre, and a layout that separates it from pedestrian routes and family parking.
No boundary detail for the edge shared with homes
The landscape pages show planting only. Along the eastern boundary with the Malling Street and Thomas Street homes the plan shows a hedge, native scrub and young 'whip' trees 80 to 100 cm tall. There is no section, no wall or fence detail and no information on levels. The first refusal reason criticised boundary treatments and the pre-application advice asked for boundary details. Small new planting would take years to screen the car park and its lighting.
Policies: SD5; SD12; SD15; SD11
Where in the document:
- PDF page 2, printed page 44, 5.1.2, landscaping plan (eastern edge) and schedule:
A Fagus Sylvatica hedge (European Beech) has been utilised on the
- PDF page 2, printed page 44, 5.1.2, Other Proposed Planting:
Native Scrub planting has been utilised besides the pedestrian access
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require full boundary treatment details and sections for the eastern boundary before deciding the application, not by condition afterwards.
- PDF page 2, printed page 44, 5.1.2, landscaping plan (eastern edge) and schedule:
Detailed Planting Plan
Ares Landscape Architects · Rev P04 issued 28/08/2026 · 886-ALA-ZZ-ZZ-D-L-9006 rev P04 · 1 page
The planting layout and plant schedules at 1:250. It shows 29 standard trees, a beech hedge on the north and east boundaries, a native scrub mix on the east side, ornamental shrub and ground-cover beds on the road frontages, and three small rain garden strips. The schedules give sizes and densities but no plant quantities.
Key facts
- Trees: silver birch (including the upright 'Obelisk' form), wild cherry, sweet gum (Liquidambar) and Freeman maple (Acer x freemanii). Most are 'extra heavy standards', 12-14 cm girth and 3.5 to 4.25 m tall at planting; the 'Obelisk' birches are semi-mature at 4.5 m. (PDF page 1, Planting Schedule, 'Standard Trees' (right of plan))
- Eight of the 29 trees are the two North American kinds (five sweet gum, three Freeman maple). All six trees inside the main car park are these. (PDF page 1, Plan labels, car park islands and access path)
- Hedge: single-species beech, planted at 60-80 cm in a double staggered row. Native scrub whips (hawthorn, blackthorn, field maple, hazel, elder) are 80-100 cm at planting. (PDF page 1, Schedules 'Hedge Planting' and 'Native Scrub Planting')
- Frontage beds use cherry laurel, Choisya, Japanese spindle and ornamental grass, with ground cover of Pachysandra, Liriope, periwinkle and daffodils. (PDF page 1, Schedules 'Block Planting' and 'Mix A' (bottom of sheet))
Possible grounds for objection
Much of the planting is ornamental, not native
The Planning Statement relies on 'native planting' to show the scheme accords with landscape and tree policies. The schedules show the Brooks Road and Malling Street frontages planted mainly with ornamental evergreen shrubs, including cherry laurel, and non-native ground cover. Eight of the 29 trees, including every tree inside the main car park, are North American species. The ecological appraisal recommended species native to the local area. Whether this suits a gateway site in the National Park is a matter of judgement for the Authority's landscape officer.
Policies: SD4; SD5; SD9; SD11
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Schedules 'Block Planting', 'Mix A' and 'Standard Trees'
- PDF page 1, Plan labels in car park islands:
Mix B: Rain Garden Planting
What to ask for: Ask for the planting schedule to be reviewed by the Authority's landscape officer and revised to locally native species where possible, with cherry laurel removed.
Planting is drawn across the line of Public Footpath Lewes 60
Public Footpath Lewes 60 (East Sussex County Council Order RWO 330, made 31 July 2026 and confirmed on 2 October 2026) crosses the site from Malling Street to Brooks Road. The planting plan does not show it. A shrub bed, a new tree and rain garden strips are drawn on or beside the line of the Order. The same point arises on the Landscape General Arrangement (2376086).
Policies: SD20
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Plan: south-east frontage bed and car park islands
What to ask for: Ask for the definitive line of the footpath to be shown on the planting plan and kept clear.
Ecosystem Services Statement
Biodiverse Consulting · 28 August 2026 · V1.2 · 2 pages
A two-page table answering the eleven headings (a to k) of South Downs Local Plan policy SD2 in one or two sentences each. It relies on tree retention, new planting and Lidl's standard water and recycling practices.
Key facts
- The whole statement is one table of eleven short entries, one for each SD2 heading. (PDF page 1, printed page 1, Table 1)
- It states that 'Two electric car charging stations will be provided'. (PDF page 2, printed page 2, Table 1, row (i))
No grounds are published for this document.
Energy Usage & Sustainability Statement
DDA Consultant Engineers Ltd (Dave Dickinson & Associates) · 07.09.26 · Revision 1 (second issue); project number 26-5155 · 58 pages
Sets out the energy strategy: an all-electric store heated and cooled by heat pumps, with about 655 square metres of solar panels on the roof. Computer modelling shows the building meets Building Regulations Part L and passes an internal overheating test. On energy and carbon the document is technically sound. It does not cover embodied carbon, reuse of the existing buildings, a green roof or the urban heat island.
Key facts
- All-electric building with no gas connection. Heating and cooling by heat pumps (a VRV system). (PDF page 30, printed page 30, 9.1.1)
- Solar panels: about 655 square metres (151 kW peak), estimated to generate 104,716 kWh a year. This is about 30% of the ground floor area of 2,152 square metres, described as 'the maximum feasible provision'. (PDF page 37, printed page 37, Section 10, Table 6)
- Building fabric and efficient services alone cut regulated carbon emissions by 4.69% against the Building Regulations baseline. (PDF page 28, printed page 27-28, 8.10, Table 5)
- With the solar panels, the claimed reduction is 148.42% in regulated carbon emissions. 'Regulated' covers heating, cooling, lighting, fans and hot water, not shop equipment or refrigeration. (PDF page 39, printed page 39, Section 11, Table 7)
- Equipment (unregulated) uses 341,673 kWh a year, against about 63,721 kWh for regulated uses. The solar panels supply about 25.83% of the total demand of 405,394 kWh. (PDF page 39, printed page 39, Section 11)
- The compliance printout shows a building emission rate of -1.99 against a target of 4.13 kg of carbon dioxide per square metre a year. (PDF page 49, printed page 49, Appendix B, BRUKL output (image))
- Overheating: all five occupied zones pass the CIBSE TM52 test using a 2050 weather file for Southampton. The sales area is mechanically cooled. (PDF page 26, printed page 26, 8.8.2, Table 3)
- Water: low-flow fittings, 4-litre WCs and metering. Rainwater harvesting is not mentioned. (PDF page 27, printed page 27, 8.9, Table 4)
- As stated in the document, policy SD48 requires BREEAM Excellent and an energy assessment for major non-residential development, and sets no numerical carbon target. (PDF page 12, printed page 10 and 12, Section 4 and 4.3)
Possible grounds for objection
Pre-application sustainability advice not addressed
The pre-application advice noted that Brooks Road is the hottest part of Lewes and recommended car park shading, a green or brown roof and a pre-demolition materials audit. This statement mentions none of them. It does not refer to the Authority's Sustainable Construction guidance, which the Planning Statement lists as relevant. Its overheating test looks only at conditions inside an air-conditioned building, not the heat effect of the roof and car park on the surrounding area. There is no assessment of embodied carbon or of reusing any existing building. Other documents offer tree planting in the car park and crushing demolition material for sub-base, but no audit and no green roof.
Policies: SD48; SD2; SD45
Where in the document:
- PDF page 25, printed page 25, 8.8:
As there is no specific overheating policy within the South Downs Local Plan
- PDF page 10, printed page 10, Section 4:
they do not prescribe a comprehensive set of quantitative energy performance requirements
- PDF page 7, printed page 7, Section 1:
which reflects the maximum feasible provision.
What to ask for: Ask for a pre-demolition audit, an embodied carbon assessment and a reasoned response on a green or brown roof and on reducing heat build-up across the site.
- PDF page 25, printed page 25, 8.8:
Envirocheck datasheet, pages 10 to 41 of 85 (Agency and Hydrological records, first half)
Landmark Information Group (Envirocheck), for Remada Ltd · 08-Jul-2024 · Order 352198767_1_1 · 32 pages
Raw database printout appended to the Phase 1 desk study. It is pages 10 to 41 of an 85-page datasheet and runs straight on into document 2376055, which holds pages 42 to 73; the two are consecutive halves, not duplicates. It lists discharge consents, pollution permits, pollution incidents, water abstractions, groundwater vulnerability, aquifer designations, Source Protection Zones and flood extents within 1 km. The search was run on 8 July 2024 for "Brooks Road, Lewes, BN7 2BY" (grid reference 542120, 110480; 0.91 ha).
Key facts
- Source Protection Zones I (inner), II (outer) and III (total catchment) are all recorded on the site itself. (PDF page 20, Page 29 of 85, Source Protection Zones, map IDs 70-72)
- Groundwater vulnerability on site is "High": a Principal bedrock aquifer with "Well Connected Fractures" and high pollutant speed. (PDF page 20, Page 29 of 85, Groundwater Vulnerability Map)
- Four groundwater abstraction entries for Harvey and Son (Lewes) Ltd at the Bridge Wharf Brewery lie 182 m to 221 m south-west of the site. (PDF page 12, Page 21 of 85, Water Abstractions, map ID 66)
- Nearest pollution incident: diesel on the Malling Brook, 55 m west, October 1996 (Category 3, minor). (PDF page 6, Page 15 of 85, Pollution Incidents to Controlled Waters, map ID 43)
- A 1992 gas oil incident 95 m north-west, at the industrial estate on Brooks Road, is noted as "Large Quantity Of Oil Killing Ducks Fish And Frogs" (also Category 3). (PDF page 7, Page 16 of 85, Pollution Incidents to Controlled Waters, map ID 44)
- A "significant" (Category 2) water pollution incident is recorded 295 m west in December 2013. (PDF page 12, Page 21 of 85, Substantiated Pollution Incident Register, map ID 64)
- The River Ouse is recorded as a tidal river 140 m west of the site. (PDF page 27, Page 36 of 85, OS Water Network Lines, map ID 77)
- The site is within the mapped extent of flooding from rivers or sea without defences. (PDF page 24, Page 33 of 85, Flooding from Rivers or Sea without Defences, first entry (distance 0))
- The Tesco petrol filling station is 35 m south-west of the site. (PDF page 5, Page 14 of 85, Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Controls, map ID 37)
No grounds are published for this document.
Envirocheck datasheet, pages 42 to 73 of 85 (water network, waste, hazardous substances, geology, trade directory)
Landmark Information Group (Envirocheck), for Remada Ltd · 08-Jul-2024 · Order 352198767_1_1 · 32 pages
Raw database printout appended to the Phase 1 desk study. Despite the similar file name, it is not a duplicate of document 2376054: it is the next 32 pages (42 to 73 of 85) of the same datasheet. It finishes the watercourse records, then lists landfill and waste sites, hazardous substance records, geological hazards, and the start of the trade directory. Same search: 8 July 2024, "Brooks Road, Lewes, BN7 2BY".
Key facts
- A historical landfill ("Malling Brooks A - Malling Industrial Estate") is recorded 32 m north-west of the site. It took inert and household waste, with first input in 1970. (PDF page 10, Page 51 of 85, Historical Landfill Sites, map ID 208)
- Three more historical landfills are recorded at 222 m, 250 m and 293 m. (PDF page 10, Page 51 of 85, Historical Landfill Sites, map IDs 209-211)
- Part of the site has a "High" hazard rating for compressible ground. (PDF page 19, Page 60 of 85, Potential for Compressible Ground Stability Hazards)
- A hazardous substances consent for liquefied flammable gas (1992) is recorded for Malling Works, Thomas Street, 14 m north-east; the related major-hazard records are no longer active. (PDF page 16, Page 57 of 85, Hazardous Substances, map IDs 228-230)
- Three trade directory entries are on the site itself, all car dealers. (PDF page 21, Page 62 of 85, Contemporary Trade Directory Entries, map ID 242)
No grounds are published for this document.
Envirocheck datasheet, pages 74 to 85 of 85 (industrial and sensitive land use, data currency), with the unexploded bomb risk map
Landmark Information Group (Envirocheck) and Zetica Ltd, for Remada Ltd · 08-Jul-2024 · Order 352198767_1_1 · 15 pages
The last 12 pages of the Envirocheck datasheet appended to the Phase 1 desk study: the rest of the trade directory, fuel station entries, sensitive land uses, and tables showing how current each dataset is. It is followed by the desk study's Appendix D, a one-page Zetica unexploded bomb risk map. The search was run on 8 July 2024.
Key facts
- Three fuel stations are listed within 250 m: Tesco (36 m south-west, open), a former Malling Street service station (143 m east, obsolete) and one at 96-106 Malling Street (146 m north-east, open). None is listed on the site itself. (PDF page 4, Page 77 of 85, Fuel Station Entries, map IDs 309-311)
- The site is recorded as within the South Downs National Park. Lewes Downs (a Site of Special Scientific Interest and Special Area of Conservation) is 215 m east. (PDF page 5, Page 78 of 85, Sensitive Land Use, map IDs 314 and 316)
- Several datasets were already old when the search was run in July 2024: the pollution incidents data dates from December 1999 and the Lewes District Council contaminated land register data from October 2017. (PDF page 6, Page 79 of 85, Data Currency)
- The bomb risk map places the site in a "low" bombing density area. (PDF page 14, Appendix D, Zetica map notes)
No grounds are published for this document.
Envirocheck datasheet: maps, summary tables and pages 1 to 9 of 85
Landmark Information Group (Envirocheck), for Remada Ltd · 08-Jul-2024 · Order 352198767_1_1 · 20 pages
The start of the Envirocheck database report appended to the Phase 1 desk study. It has five A3 maps (site sensitivity, industrial land use, flood, boreholes, water network), the cover and contents, three summary pages counting every record type by distance, and the first nine pages of records (groundwater flooding, contaminated land register entries, discharge consents). The search was run on 8 July 2024 for "Brooks Road, Lewes, BN7 2BY", 0.91 ha, with a 1,000 m buffer. The records continue in documents 2376054, 2376055 and 2376057.
Key facts
- The search is dated 8 July 2024. It was ordered under postcode BN7 2BY rather than the site postcode BN7 2DN, but at the correct grid reference (542120, 110480). (PDF page 7, cover, order details)
- On the site itself the British Geological Survey records "Potential for Groundwater Flooding to Occur at Surface". (PDF page 12, Page 1 of 85, BGS Groundwater Flooding Susceptibility, first entry)
- Summary counts: 12 pollution incidents within 250 m; Source Protection Zones on site; 3 historical landfills within 250 m; 3 trade directory entries on site; 3 fuel stations within 250 m. (PDF page 9, Summary)
- No contaminated land register entry is recorded on the site itself; the nearest is 240 m to the south. (PDF page 13, Page 2 of 85, Contaminated Land Register Entries and Notices)
No grounds are published for this document.
Envirocheck report: mapping (last two historical maps, geology maps and site sensitivity maps)
Landmark Information Group (Envirocheck), for Remada Ltd · 08-Jul-2024 · Order 352198767_1_1 · 15 pages
Fifteen A3 sheets of maps appended to the Phase 1 desk study, with no report text. They are the final two historical map sheets (2000 and a 2024 street map), two appendix cover sheets, five geology map sheets, and six context maps: groundwater vulnerability, bedrock aquifer, superficial aquifer, Source Protection Zones, sensitive land uses and groundwater flooding. All were printed on 8 July 2024 for "Brooks Road, Lewes, BN7 2BY".
Key facts
- The Source Protection Zones map shows a small inner zone (Zone 1) patch at the site, within wider outer zones. (PDF page 13, Page 4 of 6, map centre)
- The geology maps (British Geological Survey sheet 319, 2006) show alluvium (clay, silt, sand and peat) over New Pit Chalk at the site. (PDF page 5, Page 1 of 5, legend)
No grounds are published for this document.
Environmental Noise Report
Sharps Redmore · 27 August 2026 · R1v3-27.8.26-Lidl Lewes Noise Assessment-2623836-GJK (Project No 2623836) · 27 pages
This is the applicant's answer to the 2025 refusal for insufficient noise information. It reports a new background noise survey, models noise from lorry deliveries at the Old Brewery, and estimates car park noise. It does not predict noise from the refrigeration and other fixed plant, saying the plant is not yet known and can be controlled by a planning condition. It concludes the store can operate, with deliveries between 07:00 and 23:00, without significant impact.
Key facts
- Background noise was measured at one position (N1), on the site behind the former car showroom next to the Old Brewery. The survey ran 11 to 15 June 2026; readings from 11 and 12 June were discarded because of drizzle and wind. (PDF page 11, printed page 11, 3.1, 3.3 and Figure 2)
- Measured background level (LA90, the level exceeded 90% of the time): 52 dB by day, 49 dB in the evening (19:00 to 23:00) and 30 dB at night. Ambient level (LAeq, the average): 54 dB by day and 48 dB at night. (PDF page 12, printed page 12, Table 4; 3.7; second Table 4 on PDF page 14)
- No noise prediction is given for fixed plant. The report says the type and noise output of the plant are not known. It proposes a condition that plant noise must not exceed background at the nearest home, which means 30 dB at night. (PDF page 14, printed page 14, 4.2 to 4.6)
- The plant would sit in a roof-level plant well, said to be about 60 m from the nearest home. (PDF page 14, printed page 14, 4.2)
- Deliveries assumed: three lorries a day on average, each taking about an hour, one of them typically in the evening, all between 07:00 and 23:00, one lorry at a time. (PDF page 15, printed page 15, 4.10 and 4.13)
- Predicted delivery noise at the Old Brewery is 48 dB (one-hour average) in the garden and at upper floors. With a 3 dB penalty the rating level is 51 dB: 1 dB below daytime background and 2 dB above evening background. The report's own table labels the evening result 'Adverse'. (PDF page 16, printed page 16, 4.11, 4.12 and Table 6)
- Car park noise: the nearest homes (the Old Brewery and Malling Street) are put at about 7 m from the nearest parking spaces, with predicted levels of 51 dB at peak times and 46 dB off-peak. (PDF page 17, printed page 17, 4.21)
- The only mitigation recommended is a delivery management plan with four rules. The report does not recommend any acoustic fence, barrier or plant enclosure. (PDF page 17, printed page 17, 4.13 (Mitigation measures))
- Three receptors are marked on the survey figure: R1 the Old Brewery garden, R2 the Old Brewery flats and R3 Malling Street. (PDF page 11, printed page 11, Figure 2; Table 6 on PDF page 16)
- The report covers plant, deliveries and car parking only. It contains no assessment of demolition or construction noise or vibration. (PDF page 18, printed page 18, 5.1)
Possible grounds for objection
Fixed plant noise is still not assessed
The 2025 application was refused because there was not enough information to assess noise or show it could be mitigated. This report gives no prediction at all for the refrigeration plant, condensers and heat pumps, and asks for the matter to be left to a condition. Refrigeration plant normally runs through the night, when the report's own target would be 30 dB at the nearest home, and nothing shows that this can be met. The roof plan (PL-106 rev A) marks the plant well as indicative, with requirements still to be confirmed.
Policies: SD5; SD7; SD54; NPPF (noise and living conditions)
Where in the document:
- PDF page 14, printed page 14, 4.2:
The precise details of the mechanical services plant and refrigeration equipment (type and noise signature) are not known at this stage.
- PDF page 14, printed page 14, 4.3:
Comments were received from ASE regarding the lack of information available to verify the noise predictions.
- PDF page 14, printed page 14, 4.6, second Table 4 (night-time 30 dB)
- PDF page 18, printed page 18, 5.3:
Plant noise will be controlled by condition
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require a plant schedule with manufacturers' sound data, a roof layout and a BS 4142 prediction for day and night at each nearby home before the application is decided.
- PDF page 14, printed page 14, 4.2:
Evening deliveries rated 'Adverse' on the report's own figures
Table 6 finds evening delivery noise 2 dB above background and labels it 'Adverse'. The report then sets this aside on context, including that Old Brewery residents can keep windows shut, which does not help in the garden. Only a 3 dB penalty is added for the character of the noise, and one background figure (49 dB) is used for the whole evening although the survey chart shows background falling towards 23:00. The Planning Statement (para 5.89) prefers deliveries outside opening hours, which points to the earliest and latest hours, while the Environmental Protection officer recommends ending deliveries at 21:00, not 23:00.
Policies: SD5; SD7; SD54
Where in the document:
- PDF page 16, printed page 16, Table 6 (Difference +2dB; Initial Assessment 'Adverse')
- PDF page 13, printed page 13, 3.7:
the representative background noise levels during the period 1900 – 2300 hours were typically 49 dB
- PDF page 15, printed page 15, 4.12:
a +3 dB feature correction for impulsivity has been applied
- PDF page 17, printed page 17, 4.13 (Sensitivity of receptors):
other means of ventilation to enable windows to be closed should residents choose
- PDF page 12, printed page 12, Figure 3 (survey chart)
What to ask for: Ask for an hour-by-hour assessment of deliveries from 07:00 to 08:00 and 21:00 to 23:00, including Sundays, and for delivery hours no longer than those recommended by Environmental Protection.
Mitigation is not defined or shown on the drawings
The ground-floor plot shows a line around three sides of the Old Brewery garden, with levels falling from 54 to 56 dB outside it to 48 dB inside, which suggests a wall or barrier in the model, but the report does not say what it is or how high it is. The boundary plan (PL-108 rev E) shows no acoustic fence and says only that the existing wall is to be repaired and maintained as appropriate. The Planning Statement (3.15) refers to acoustic enclosures and the Design and Access Statement (3.2.4) to acoustic fencing, but this report recommends neither. The delivery rules also differ: this report bars reversing alarms only outside trading hours, while the Planning Statement (5.93) says none will be used.
Policies: SD5; SD54
Where in the document:
- PDF page 22, Appendix B, plot SK01 (ground floor, 1.5 m): cyan line around the Old Brewery garden; '48' inside, yellow 54-56 dB band outside
- PDF page 15, printed page 15, 4.7:
noise source data, barriers, topography, intervening ground
- PDF page 17, printed page 17, 4.13 (Mitigation measures):
No audible reversing alarms to be used outside if trading hours
- PDF page 17, printed page 17, 4.21:
These calculations do not take into account any existing or proposed screening around the garden of the Old Brewery.
What to ask for: Ask for the height, position and construction of every wall or barrier relied on in the noise model to be stated and shown on the boundary treatment plan, and for one consistent set of delivery rules.
No demolition or construction noise and vibration assessment
The report deals only with the finished store. The Environmental Protection officer asks for an outline demolition and construction environmental management plan covering noise and vibration, noting that the site adjoins the Grade II listed Old Brewery. Neither this report nor any other submitted document provides one. This may be capable of being dealt with by condition, but the officer has asked for it before the application is decided.
Policies: SD5; SD13; SD54
Where in the document:
- PDF page 18, printed page 18, 5.1:
The following activities have been assessed.
What to ask for: Ask for an outline construction environmental management plan, with vibration limits and monitoring at the Old Brewery boundary, before determination.
- PDF page 18, printed page 18, 5.1:
Existing Site Plan
Whittam Cox Architects · July 2026 · Job 240129, drawing PL-102, no revision letter; 1:250 at A1 · 1 page
A 1:250 plan of the site as it is now, with the red line on a survey base. It shows the two garage buildings, the smaller buildings on the Malling Street frontage, parking areas and the Brooks Road entrance. Nothing is labelled apart from street names and house numbers: there are no ground levels, no building names or heights, no tree numbers and no note of what is to be demolished. The public footpath that crosses the site is not marked.
Key facts
- Same red line and site area (9,450 square metres) as the location plan. (PDF page 1, Key, right-hand side)
- The plan draws the steps and narrow passage running up from Malling Street beside the frontage building, and the yard between the two garage buildings. These are the features the route of Footpath Lewes 60 follows, but the route itself is not marked. (PDF page 1, Plan, south-east frontage to Malling Street and central yard)
- No existing ground levels, boundary wall types or heights are shown. (PDF page 1, Whole sheet)
Possible grounds for objection
Public footpath across the site is not recorded
Footpath Lewes 60 (East Sussex County Council Order RWO 330, made 31 July 2026 and confirmed on 2 October 2026) crosses the site from Malling Street to Brooks Road. This baseline plan does not show it, or its gates and widths, even though the application form answers 'Yes' to the question on diversions of rights of way. Without the route on the existing plan, nobody reading the drawings can see what the new layout does to it. The pre-application advice asked the applicant to show how the route could be varied.
Policies: SD20; SD19
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Drawing PL-102: whole plan; no right of way notation anywhere on the sheet or in the key
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require an existing site plan that shows the line, width and gates of Footpath Lewes 60.
Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (main report and Appendices A to G)
Mayer Brown Limited · September 2026 (issue date 07.09.26) · Report reference LIDLLEWES.23, 1st Planning Issue · 63 pages
The applicant's flood and drainage report, which accepts that almost all of the site is in Flood Zone 3 of the tidal River Ouse but treats the risk as 'residual' because of the river defences. It sets the shop floor at 4.50 m above sea level (AOD), stores rainwater in two underground tanks and releases it to the public surface water sewer at 5 litres a second. It concludes that the store will not be at risk and will not increase flooding elsewhere. This file stops at Appendix G: Appendices H to Q (drainage drawings, calculations, the Sequential Test and consultee letters) are filed separately on the portal under the title 'Strategic Flood Risk Assessments' (document 2376066).
Key facts
- Almost all of the 0.93 hectare site is in Flood Zone 3 (high probability of flooding). The River Ouse is about 200 m to the west and is tidal at Lewes. (PDF page 5, printed page 1, 1.3)
- The shop floor is set at 4.50 m AOD. That is 170 mm above the present-day 1-in-100-year flood level (4.33 m AOD) modelled without defences. (PDF page 17, printed page 13, 4.16)
- Environment Agency modelled flood levels for the site with climate change are 5.60 m AOD (35% more river flow), 5.74 m (45%) and 6.46 m (105%). The 1-in-1,000-year level is 5.95 m without defences and 5.64 m with them. (PDF page 61, Appendix G, Tables 1 and 2)
- The report says the defences protect the site up to the present-day 1-in-100-year event, but not once climate change is added. (PDF page 15, printed page 11, 4.13)
- The store is classed as a 'Less Vulnerable' use. The report says the Sequential Test is passed and that the Exception Test does not apply. (PDF page 13, printed page 9, 4.6-4.8)
- No flood storage compensation is proposed. The report says it is not required because the risk is residual. (PDF page 17, printed page 13, 4.20)
- The site is about 97% hard surfaced now and drains unrestricted. The proposal is about 73% hard surfaced, with rainwater discharge limited to 5.0 litres a second into the 300 mm public surface water sewer in Davey's Lane and 560 cubic metres of storage. (PDF page 22, printed page 18, 5.14-5.17)
- Soakaways (infiltration) are ruled out: clay soils, shallow groundwater and the Environment Agency's 2025 advice that infiltration is not appropriate over the chalk aquifer in Source Protection Zone 1. No infiltration test results are reported. (PDF page 20, printed page 16, 5.4-5.6)
- If the drains are overwhelmed, water is designed to flow to the north-east corner of the car park and out onto Davey's Lane. (PDF page 24, printed page 20, 5.30)
- Foul water (no more than 1 litre a second) would go to the existing 225 mm combined sewer in Malling Street. Applications to Southern Water to connect are left to the detailed design stage. (PDF page 25, printed page 21, 6.3-6.6)
Possible grounds for objection
Shop floor is over a metre below the climate-change flood level
The floor level of 4.50 m AOD is set against the present-day 1-in-100-year level of 4.33 m. The Environment Agency data in the report's own Appendix G gives 5.60 m AOD with 35% climate change and 5.74 m with 45%: 1.1 to 1.2 m above the shop floor and up to about 2.3 m above the lowest parts of the car park. The report itself says the defences no longer protect the site once climate change is added, yet it calls the risk 'residual' and concludes the store will not be at risk of flooding. It gives no design flood level for the lifetime of the building and does not say which climate change allowance applies to river flooding.
Policies: SD49; Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policy PL3; NPPF (planning and flood risk)
Where in the document:
- PDF page 17, printed page 13, 4.16:
which is 170mm above the simulated undefended 1in100yr flood level of 4.33m AOD
- PDF page 15, printed page 11, 4.13:
when climate change is added the flood defences no longer protects the site
- PDF page 61, Appendix G, Table 1: Water Levels, Fluvial Undefended
- PDF page 27, printed page 23, 7.10:
will not be at risk of flooding if the proposed mitigation measures are implemented
- PDF page 63, Appendix G, Environment Agency note:
Please note the climate change allowances provided are not up to date.
What to ask for: Require a revised assessment that states the design flood level using current climate change allowances, compares it with the floor and car park levels, and sets out flood resistance and resilience measures; and re-consult the Environment Agency on it.
- PDF page 17, printed page 13, 4.16:
No assessment of where displaced flood water would go
The report says flood storage compensation is not needed because the risk is residual, although on its own evidence the site floods in the climate-change event even with the defences. The levels drawing shows the northern car park at about 3.3 to 4.1 m AOD where existing levels along Davey's Lane are about 2.9 to 3.1 m, with a new retaining wall (top 3.90 m) beside the Old Brewery land, whose level is shown as 3.00 m 'assumed'. The building footprint grows from 0.229 to 0.26 hectares, and the cut-and-fill drawing that the levels plan refers to is not included. Filling the low part of the site also removes the place where surface water now collects; the effect on Davey's Lane and adjoining homes is not assessed.
Policies: SD49; SD50; NPPF (planning and flood risk)
Where in the document:
- PDF page 17, printed page 13, 4.20:
flood compensation analysis is not required
- PDF page 44, Appendix F, drawing SF/LIDLLEWES.23/11 rev P3: notes at the north boundary (Old Brewery) and east boundary (Malling Street homes); retaining wall 'RET WALL 01 TOW=3.90':
Adjacent levels and retention to
- PDF page 44, Appendix F, drawing SF/LIDLLEWES.23/11 rev P3: note 3 in the notes panel, right-hand side:
Proposed Isopachyte Heights
- PDF page 18, printed page 14, 4.23-4.24:
By completely redesigning the ground levels
- PDF page 8, printed page 4, 2.6 (existing building footprints 0.229 ha)
- PDF page 10, printed page 6, 3.3 (proposed building footprints 0.26 ha)
- PDF page 27, printed page 23, 7.11:
will not increase the risk of flooding to downstream/surrounding properties
What to ask for: Require a drawing comparing existing and proposed ground levels, a level-for-level calculation of flood storage lost and gained, surveyed rather than assumed levels on the neighbours' boundaries, and an assessment of flood depths on adjoining land before and after.
- PDF page 17, printed page 13, 4.20:
Footpath Lewes 60 is missing from the levels design
Neither the report nor its levels drawing shows Public Footpath Lewes 60, which crosses the site between Malling Street and Brooks Road. The levels design lays out retaining walls, planted banks, parking and the delivery area across the site without identifying the route. Plotted from the Order coordinates, the route appears to meet Malling Street at the planted bank and short retaining wall (top 4.90 m) beside the pedestrian ramp. The report does not say whether the path would stay on its line or be diverted.
Policies: SD20; NPPF (public rights of way)
Where in the document:
- PDF page 44, Appendix F, drawing SF/LIDLLEWES.23/11 rev P3: whole sheet; retaining wall 'TOW=4.90' near the Malling Street pedestrian access
- PDF page 42, Appendix E, Proposed Site Plan PL-103 rev G
What to ask for: Require the footpath to be plotted on the levels and drainage drawings, and either the design changed to keep it or a diversion formally proposed, before the application is decided.
Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy: Appendices H to Q (filed on the portal as 'Strategic Flood Risk Assessments')
Mayer Brown Limited (compiled; includes consultee letters, borehole logs and supplier literature by others) · September 2026 (contents dated between October 2024 and July 2026) · Drainage general arrangement SF/LIDLLEWES.23/20 rev P7; drained area plan SF/LIDLLEWES.23/21 rev P2 · 65 pages
Despite its portal title, this is not a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment: page 1 is the last page of the Environment Agency flood data sheet, which happens to carry the heading 'Strategic flood risk assessments'. The rest is Appendices H to Q of the applicant's Flood Risk Assessment: the drainage layout, run-off and storage calculations, product sheets, the flood Sequential Test, borehole logs, and the 2025 letters from the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency on the previous, refused application. The National Park's own Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is not included, so the file says nothing from that source about this part of Lewes.
Key facts
- The file is the second half of the Flood Risk Assessment (document 2376068). It starts with page 26 of the Environment Agency data sheet and then runs from Appendix H to Appendix Q. (PDF page 2, Appendix H divider)
- Drainage layout: two underground crate tanks under the car park (277.8 and 284.2 cubic metres), two flow controls set at 5 litres a second, one oil separator and two rain gardens in the eastern car park. The outfall is to the existing 300 mm public surface water sewer at the Brooks Road / Davey's Lane corner. (PDF page 3, Drawing SF/LIDLLEWES.23/20 rev P7)
- The greenfield run-off calculation (QBAR 5.3 litres a second) is dated 14/10/2024 and uses the whole 0.94 hectare site. (PDF page 5, printed page 1, Appendix I)
- Borehole logs from September 2024 show made ground and chalk fill, with groundwater met at about 1.0 m below ground at WS5 and WS9. (PDF page 52, Appendix P)
- Lead Local Flood Authority letter of 10 November 2025 on the previous application: no objection with standard conditions, including the 5 litres a second limit, a survey of the receiving sewer and groundwater monitoring between autumn and spring. (PDF page 59, Appendix Q)
- Environment Agency letter of 23 May 2025 on the previous application: no objection subject to four conditions (piling, remediation strategy, unexpected contamination, no infiltration drainage). It records the site as within Source Protection Zone 1 on a Principal aquifer. (PDF page 61, printed page 1, Appendix Q)
- An existing Southern Water foul sewer across the car park area is marked for removal, and the combined sewer at the south is marked for diversion around the new building. (PDF page 3, Drawing SF/LIDLLEWES.23/20 rev P7)
Possible grounds for objection
Drainage design lies across the line of Footpath Lewes 60
The drainage drawings do not show Public Footpath Lewes 60. Using the grid coordinates in the applicant's own drainage model, Rain Garden 01 and Attenuation Tank 01 lie across the route between Malling Street and the middle of the site. The drain at the foot of the sunken delivery ramp (3.25 m AOD) is about 4 m from the route near Brooks Road, and its pipe run crosses the route. The design therefore assumes the path is moved or closed, without saying so.
Policies: SD20; NPPF (public rights of way)
Where in the document:
- PDF page 8, printed page 1, Appendix J: node table with eastings and northings (Rain Garden 01, SW05, SW08, RAMP)
- PDF page 3, Appendix H, drawing SF/LIDLLEWES.23/20 rev P7: rain gardens and Tank 01 in the eastern car park; 'Linear channel (ACO) bottom of service ramp' at the north-west of the store
What to ask for: Require the footpath to be plotted on the drainage drawings and any diversion to be applied for and shown, with the drainage redesigned if the path stays on its line.
Deep sewer diversion drawn beside the protected sycamores
The drainage drawing shows the public combined sewer diverted around the south-west corner of the store, with new manholes FW10 (2.81 m deep) and FW11 (3.65 m deep) drawn beside the canopy of the retained sycamores. The levels drawing (in document 2376068) says levels there are designed to avoid any works near the tree roots. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment does not mention sewer or drainage works. The drawing adds that the line and level of the existing sewer are still to be confirmed and that a diversion may not be needed.
Policies: SD11
Where in the document:
- PDF page 3, Appendix H, drawing SF/LIDLLEWES.23/20 rev P7: south-west corner, notes 'EXISTING COMBINED SEWER' and 'FOUL WATER OUTFALL':
redundant, there may be no diversion required.
What to ask for: Require the tree report to assess the sewer diversion and manholes against the root protection areas of the protected sycamores, or the diversion to be re-routed.
- PDF page 3, Appendix H, drawing SF/LIDLLEWES.23/20 rev P7: south-west corner, notes 'EXISTING COMBINED SEWER' and 'FOUL WATER OUTFALL':
Heritage Impact Assessment
SLR Consulting Limited · 8 September 2026 · Revision 03 (SLR project no. 439.061618.00001) · 127 pages
The applicant's heritage and archaeology report, and its main answer to the first reason the 2025 scheme was refused (design and heritage). It looks in detail at the Lewes Conservation Area, the Grade II listed Old Brewery, the Grade I listed Jireh Chapel and two groups of unlisted historic houses on Malling Street and Thomas Street. It concludes that the redesigned store would cause no harm to any of them and would have a neutral effect on buried archaeology. It rests on the redesign and on one site visit in February 2025; it has no photomontages or verified views and does not assess signage or lighting.
Key facts
- Conclusion: the development would 'preserve the significance and settings' of every heritage asset assessed, 'with no harm arising'. In 2025 the Authority found less-than-substantial harm that public benefits did not outweigh. (PDF page 53, printed page 48, 7.0)
- Five assets are assessed in detail: Lewes Conservation Area (boundary 25 m south of the site), the Grade II Old Brewery (listed as the Registered Offices of E. O. Culverwell, adjoining the site), the Grade I Jireh Chapel, and the unlisted 50-52 Malling Street and 18-21 Thomas Street, which the report treats as likely non-designated heritage assets. (PDF page 38, printed page 33, 5.2.1)
- Within 500 m the report counts two scheduled monuments, one Grade I, four Grade II* and 143 Grade II listed buildings. All others are scoped out without detailed assessment, including Lewes Castle, the Green Wall, Harvey's Brewery and the Martyrs' Memorial on Cliffe Hill. (PDF page 37, printed page 32-34, 5.1 and 5.2.2)
- The report lists nine heritage objections to the 2025 scheme (scale and massing, 75 m blank Malling Street frontage, 3 m fencing, impact on 50 Malling Street and others) and sets a 'design response' against each in Table 2. (PDF page 47, printed page 42, 6.2, Table 2)
- It reports the Conservation Officer's comments of 14 July 2026: the changes were welcomed and assets are 'now considered better preserved and protected', but bespoke signage in muted colours and a lighting strategy were asked for. It mentions a Design Review Panel meeting but reports none of the Panel's comments. (PDF page 9, printed page 4-5, 1.2)
- An L-shaped boundary wall between the site and the Old Brewery courtyard 'may be considered listed'. It is the rear wall of the garage to be demolished. The report says a council conservation team advised in 2025 that it is 'unlikely to have legal protection'. The wall is to be kept and cleaned, with a plaque suggested. (PDF page 37, printed page 32, 5.1)
- All four existing buildings would be demolished. The report calls them all modern and says no built heritage assets are within the site. None is assessed as a non-designated heritage asset. The Historic Landscape Characterisation is one paragraph classing the site as 'Industry'. (PDF page 34, printed page 29, 3.8-3.9 and 6.1)
- Archaeology: low potential for prehistoric to medieval remains; 'moderate potential' for post-medieval and modern remains, including Southdown Brewery foundations of 'low - medium' interest. Impact is judged neutral. The only recommendation is to send the report to the County's archaeological adviser; no fieldwork or condition is proposed. (PDF page 49, printed page 44, 4.2 and 6.2.1)
- The visual evidence is 34 photographs from one site visit on 28 February 2025, before the redesign, which the report says was in 'cold and very foggy weather'. There are no photomontages, verified views or views from Lewes Castle, Cliffe Hill or the Downs. (PDF page 33, printed page 28, 3.9)
- The appended elevations (drawing 240129 PL-107 Rev D) show building heights of 8.9 m and 9.88 m and 'Internally illuminated sign' on the store, with a note that signage will be sought through a separate advertisement application. The text of the report does not state the building's height. (PDF page 126, Appendix E)
Possible grounds for objection
No views evidence behind the 'no harm' conclusion
The report has no photomontages, verified views or viewpoint analysis of the proposed building, and the pre-application advice asked for a landscape and visual assessment. Its visual evidence is photographs from one site visit in February 2025, before the redesign, mostly taken on or beside the site and showing the existing buildings. Lewes Castle is scoped out for lack of intervisibility by reference to Photo 25, which looks south at the Conservation Area rather than towards the Castle, and views from the Castle, Cliffe Hill and the Downs (which the report says rise about 100 m east of the site) are not tested. Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policy HC3A on significant views is quoted in the appendix but not applied in the assessment.
Policies: SD12; SD15; SD5; SD4; Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policy HC3A
Where in the document:
- PDF page 39, printed page 34, 5.2.2:
Due to lack of inter-visibility with the Site (Appendix D; Photo 25)
- PDF page 119, Appendix D, Photo 25 caption:
View southwards from the Site, showing Malling Street and the extent of Lewes Conservation Area
- PDF page 33, printed page 28, 3.9:
A Site visit was undertaken on 28th February 2025 during cold and very foggy weather
- PDF page 49, printed page 44, 6.3.1:
There will be no significant intervisibility between the Site and the Conservation Area.
- PDF page 15, printed page 10, 3.4:
dominated by its location barely 100m to the west of the Lewes Downs
- PDF page 78, printed page B-7, Appendix B, Policy HC3A(1):
The visual significance of Lewes Castle
What to ask for: Require verified views or photomontages of the proposed building, by day and after dark, from agreed viewpoints including the Conservation Area edge, the Old Brewery, Lewes Castle, Cliffe Hill and the Downs, before the application is decided.
- PDF page 39, printed page 34, 5.2.2:
Illuminated signage, lighting and car park effects on setting not assessed
The report records the Conservation Officer's request for bespoke signage in muted colours and a lighting strategy, but its impact assessment says nothing about signage, lighting or how the site would look after dark. The elevations appended to the report show internally illuminated signs, and the Design and Access Statement (Part 2, section 4.4.1) answers the request by saying branding would stay consistent with Lidl standards. The 106-space car park is described only as a benefit; its lighting columns and night-time appearance next to the Old Brewery, the Malling Street and Thomas Street houses and the Conservation Area are not considered. Policy SD5, quoted in the report, requires design suited to its setting in 'night and day visibility'.
Policies: SD5; SD8; SD12; SD13; SD15
Where in the document:
- PDF page 10, printed page 5, 1.2:
Introduction of bespoke signage in more muted colours should be utilised
- PDF page 10, printed page 5, 1.2:
Lighting strategy is required.
- PDF page 126, Appendix E, drawing 240129 PL-107 Rev D, key item 09 (right-hand key):
Internally illuminated sign
- PDF page 126, Appendix E, drawing 240129 PL-107 Rev D, note below the key:
Signage shown is indicative and will be sought through a separate advertisement application.
- PDF page 76, printed page B-5, Appendix B, Policy SD5(1)(f):
night and day visibility
What to ask for: Require signage and lighting details now, with a heritage assessment of their day and night effect on the Conservation Area and the Old Brewery, and secure muted, non-illuminated signage as the pre-application advice sought.
- PDF page 10, printed page 5, 1.2:
'No harm' finding does not address the earlier finding of harm
The report records that the 2025 scheme was refused for less-than-substantial harm, but does not mention the 2025 officer report's view that the harm was at the higher end of that scale. It accepts that the site is in the 'immediate setting' of the Conservation Area, is a 'gateway location' and contributes to the area's significance, yet concludes that views are 'not key / important' and that no harm arises, without stating the building's height or describing what would be seen. The Conservation Officer's reported view is that assets are 'better preserved and protected', which is not the same as no harm. Because no harm is claimed, neither this report nor the Planning Statement (paras 5.60-5.64) weighs heritage harm against public benefits, so there is no fallback if the Authority finds that some harm remains.
Policies: SD12; SD13; SD15; NPPF heritage policies (HE5 and HE6 as quoted in the report)
Where in the document:
- PDF page 8, printed page 3, 1.1:
the harm would not be outweighed by public benefits
- PDF page 9, printed page 4, 1.2:
are now considered better preserved and protected
- PDF page 40, printed page 35, 5.3:
the Site forms part of the immediate setting of the Conservation Area and development within
- PDF page 41, printed page 36, 5.3, Statement of Significance:
contributes to its significance through forming part of the rear skyline of the Cliffe area
- PDF page 49, printed page 44, 6.3.1:
These views are not key / important
- PDF page 53, printed page 48, 7.0:
preserve the significance and settings of these heritage assets, with no harm arising
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to reach its own view on the level of harm to each asset, taking account of its 2025 findings, and to require the applicant to set out the public benefits relied on if any harm is found.
- PDF page 8, printed page 3, 1.1:
Legal status and protection of the possibly listed wall unresolved
The report says the L-shaped wall on the Old Brewery boundary 'may be considered listed', then relies on 2025 advice that it is 'unlikely' to be protected and concludes it is 'not considered curtilage listed'. The wall is the rear wall of the garage to be demolished, and the garage abuts the listed building, but the only safeguard offered is that 'care be taken during demolition'; there is no structural survey or demolition method statement. The report is also inconsistent: one section says the development has no direct impact because no built heritage assets are within the site, another says it has the potential to directly affect the listed building, and the wall is described both as the garage's rear wall and as not associated with any standing structure. The appended site plan shows a new retaining wall and path alongside this boundary, which the report does not mention.
Policies: SD13; SD12; Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, section 66
Where in the document:
- PDF page 37, printed page 32, 5.1:
boundary wall dividing the Site from the private courtyard to the north may be considered listed
- PDF page 37, printed page 32, 5.1:
It currently forms the rear wall of an existing garage building.
- PDF page 14, printed page 9, 3.1:
The Design and Conservation Team confirmed that the wall is unlikely to have legal protection.
- PDF page 50, printed page 45, 6.3.2:
should care be taken during demolition, the development would have no direct impact on historic fabric
- PDF page 47, printed page 42, 6.1:
no built heritage assets are present within the Site boundary
- PDF page 34, printed page 29, 3.9:
This wall is not associated with any of the existing standing structures
- PDF page 125, Appendix E, drawing 240129 PL-103 Rev G: dashed 'Retaining wall' line beside the Old Brewery courtyard, north-east part of the plan
What to ask for: Require the Authority's written view on whether the wall is protected as part of the listed building, plus a structural survey and a demolition and wall-protection method statement, before a decision rather than by later condition.
- PDF page 37, printed page 32, 5.1:
Historic flint wall and boundaries with the houses not assessed
The report records and photographs a 'historic, brick and flint wall' on the north side of Wellers Yard; the photo caption indicates that other parts of the site lie beyond it. The impact assessment does not mention this wall or say whether it would be kept, and the proposed site plan shows car parking and planting across this part of the site. For the boundary with 50 Malling Street the report says only that the scheme is 'Redesigned so no adverse impact', with no detail, while the Hard Landscaping and Boundary Treatment Plan leaves boundary walls to be reviewed after demolition. Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policy HC3A, quoted in the report, says proposals that harm historic flint walls will not be supported.
Policies: Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policy HC3A; SD12; SD5
Where in the document:
- PDF page 33, printed page 28, 3.9:
defined by a historic, brick and flint wall (Appendix D; Photo 16)
- PDF page 114, Appendix D, Photo 16 caption:
Historic wall located along the northern extent of Wellers Yard, with further areas of the Site
- PDF page 48, printed page 43, 6.2, Table 2, row 6:
Redesigned so no adverse impact on
- PDF page 79, printed page B-8, Appendix B, Policy HC3A(4):
Development proposals that cause harm to historic flint walls in the town will not be supported.
What to ask for: Require a survey of all historic walls on and around the site, a drawing showing which are kept, repaired or removed, and a heritage assessment of each, before a decision.
- PDF page 33, printed page 28, 3.9:
Illustrative Masterplan
Ares Landscape Architects · Issued for planning 28/08/2026 (drawn date 07/03/2025) · 886-ALA-ZZ-ZZ-D-L-9002 rev P01 · 1 page
A coloured presentation plan of the landscape scheme at 1:250, with a lettered key (A to M) to entrances, parking and planting. It adds no detail beyond the Landscape General Arrangement.
Key facts
- The key lists '2no. EV Charging Points' (E), 'Provisional EV charging points' (M), '9no. Family Parking Bays', '6no. Accessible Parking Bays' and a '12no. Cycle Store'. (PDF page 1, Key, right-hand side)
- Pedestrian access points shown: steps from Malling Street by the store entrance, a ramp from Malling Street further east, and a path from Davey's Lane on the north side. (PDF page 1, Key items A, B and C on plan)
- No gates or barriers are shown at the vehicle entrance on Brooks Road. (PDF page 1, Plan, item D)
Possible grounds for objection
Public Footpath Lewes 60 is not shown
Public Footpath Lewes 60 (East Sussex County Council Order RWO 330, made 31 July 2026 and confirmed on 2 October 2026) crosses the site from Malling Street to Brooks Road. The masterplan shows three pedestrian access points but not the public footpath, and no route across the site from the east end of Malling Street to Brooks Road. The same point arises, with more detail, on the Landscape General Arrangement (2376086) and the boundary treatment plan (2376092).
Policies: SD20
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Key item C and plan:
Pedestrain Footway Access
What to ask for: Ask for the public footpath to be shown on all layout drawings.
- PDF page 1, Key item C and plan:
Landscape General Arrangement
Ares Landscape Architects · Issued for planning 28/08/2026 (drawn date 07/03/2025) · 886-ALA-ZZ-ZZ-D-L-9008 rev P01 · 1 page
The main landscape layout at 1:250. It shows the store, car park, paths, proposed and existing levels, 29 new trees, hedges and shrub beds, and a key of fences and walls. It defers the treatment of the east boundary wall with the Malling Street homes until after demolition.
Key facts
- 29 proposed trees are drawn. The three sycamores at the Brooks Road corner and the cherry at the south-east corner are shown as existing trees kept. Two trees and two groups in the middle of the site are shown removed. (PDF page 1, Plan; key 'Planting')
- Boundary key: F1 timber knee rail 0.9 m; W1 brick wall; W2 brick wall with railing; W3 existing wall; W4 boundary wall; W5 flint wall. Only the knee rail and the 1.2 m guarding on the flint wall have a height. No gates and no acoustic fence are shown. (PDF page 1, Key 'Fencing and Structures', right-hand side)
- Levels: store floor +4.50 m. At the south-east corner the existing level is 4.23 m and Malling Street is at 4.7 m. (PDF page 1, Spot levels on plan, south-east corner)
- The planted strip between the east row of parking bays and the boundary with the homes varies, as scaled from the plan, from under 2 m at its narrowest corner to about 14 m at its widest. (PDF page 1, East boundary (scaled; drawing is marked 'do not scale'))
Possible grounds for objection
No landscape and visual assessment supports the landscape scheme
The pre-application advice asked for a landscape and visual impact assessment, including how the scheme responds to the protected trees. None is submitted. The landscape drawings and the Planning Statement rely on planting numbers alone, and no document assesses the Ouse Floodplain landscape character area or views in and out of the site. Policy SD4 was one of the policies cited in the first reason for refusal in 2025.
Policies: SD4; SD5
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Whole sheet. Note 3 (top right) says to read it with the other landscape drawings; no landscape assessment is referenced
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require a landscape and visual impact assessment, with agreed viewpoints, before the application is decided.
Public Footpath Lewes 60 is not shown and is designed across
Public Footpath Lewes 60 (East Sussex County Council Order RWO 330, made 31 July 2026 and confirmed on 2 October 2026) crosses the site from Malling Street to Brooks Road. This drawing does not show or label it. On the line of the Order the plan places a flint wall with guarding and a planting bed at the Malling Street end, then parking bays, aisles and the service area. The paths that are drawn (from Davey's Lane, the ramp and the steps from Malling Street) follow different lines, and no diversion route is identified.
Policies: SD20
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Plan: Malling Street frontage east of the 'Proposed accessible path'; car park; service area
- PDF page 1, Label at top of plan:
Proposed pedestrian path from Davey's Lane
What to ask for: Require the definitive line of Footpath Lewes 60 to be plotted on the layout, with either a design that keeps it open or a defined alternative route, before determination.
Boundary wall with Malling Street homes left to be decided later
The wall along the east boundary (W4) is to be 'reviewed' and repaired or replaced after the existing building is demolished. No height, material or line is given, and the key gives no height for any wall. The pre-application advice asked for boundary treatment details. Without them the effect on neighbours' privacy, noise and security, and on any historic walling, cannot be assessed.
Policies: SD5; Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policy HC3A
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Note on east boundary, right of plan:
The boundary wall to be reviewed and, where appropriate, repaired or replaced in connection with the removal of the existing building
What to ask for: Ask for a survey of the existing boundary walls and a fixed design, with heights, for each length of boundary next to homes, before determination.
- PDF page 1, Note on east boundary, right of plan:
New flint wall drawn through root area of the retained cherry
The flint wall that replaces the brick retaining wall on Malling Street (W5) is drawn through the canopy circle of the existing cherry at the south-east corner. The plan also shows a level difference of about 0.9 m between the tree and the car park. The tree report (2376077) proposes no special measures for this tree.
Policies: SD11
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Note at lower right, pointing to Malling Street frontage:
Flint wall to replace brick retaining wall with 1.2m height stainless steel guarding fixed on top
- PDF page 1, Spot level at south-east corner:
ex / 4.23m
What to ask for: Ask for the wall and levels at the south-east corner to be designed with the tree consultant and shown on a revised plan.
- PDF page 1, Note at lower right, pointing to Malling Street frontage:
Landscape specification and details
The landscape architect's schedule of surface materials and landscape products, to be read with the landscape drawings. It specifies asphalt for the footpaths, access road and car park, a concrete delivery ramp, charcoal block paving beside the building, tactile paving at the steps and crossing, and the edgings, furniture and planting details that go with them. It sets out materials only; layout and planting are on the other landscape drawings.
Phase 1 desk study, part 2 of 3: historical maps (1973 to 1996, and 1878 to 1930)
Remada Ltd (maps supplied by Landmark Envirocheck) · July 2024 (maps printed 08-Jul-2024) · Appendix A to Report No. 1284.01.01 · 10 pages
Ten A3 map sheets continuing Appendix A of the desk study. There is no report text. Sheets 1 to 5 are large-scale Ordnance Survey maps of the site from 1973, 1983-86, 1987-91, 1994 and 1996. Sheets 6 to 10 are a legend and small-scale maps from 1878, 1899, 1911 and 1930. Read with part 1, which interprets them.
Key facts
- The 1983-86 and 1994 large-scale maps label a large "Garage" building in the south-west of the site beside Brooks Road, with "Works" and "Warehouse" buildings to the north-east. (PDF page 2, Page 11 of 14, map centre)
- The maps were ordered for "Brooks Road, Lewes, BN7 2BY" at grid reference 542120, 110480, for a site of 0.91 ha, and printed on 8 July 2024. (PDF page 1, Page 10 of 14, order details panel)
No grounds are published for this document.
Phase 1 desk study, part 3 of 3: historical maps (1938 to 1992)
Remada Ltd (maps supplied by Landmark Envirocheck) · July 2024 (maps printed 08-Jul-2024) · Appendix A to Report No. 1284.01.01 · 7 pages
Seven A3 sheets of small-scale (1:10,560 and 1:10,000) historical maps of Lewes from 1938, 1951, 1963 (two sheets), 1976, 1981-83 and 1992. There is no report text. They are sheets 6 to 12 of a 14-sheet set; the last two sheets (2000 and 2024) are in document 2376058. Read with part 1.
Key facts
- Small-scale maps only: they show the town-wide setting and add little detail about the site itself beyond the large-scale maps in parts 1 and 2. (PDF page 1, Page 6 of 14)
No grounds are published for this document.
Phase 1 Site Investigation and Preliminary Risk Assessment (desk study), part 1 of 3
Remada Ltd · July 2024 · Report No. 1284.01.01 · 33 pages
A desk study of the ground and contamination risks at the Brooks Road site, written in July 2024. It finds past uses that could have contaminated the ground (brewery, agricultural engineering works, motor engineering works and garage, slaughterhouse, an infilled drain) on a site over a chalk Principal Aquifer, mostly within the inner Source Protection Zone for a groundwater supply. It recommends a petroleum licensing search, an intrusive investigation, soil and groundwater sampling and ground gas monitoring. This part holds the report text, three figures and the first nine historical map sheets (1875 to 1971-88).
Key facts
- Past uses on the site: a brewery (disused by 1930), then Malling Works (agricultural implements) and a Motor Engineering Works by 1955, a slaughterhouse, and a drain on the western edge that was infilled or culverted by 1983. The large building in the south-west is labelled "garage" on the 1983 map. (PDF page 8, printed page 4, 2.3)
- The chalk bedrock is a Principal Aquifer. Most of the site is in Source Protection Zone I (the inner zone, 50 days or less travel time to a groundwater source); the rest is in Zone II. (PDF page 10, printed page 6, 2.5.5)
- Four licensed groundwater abstractions lie within 250 m (182 m to 221 m away), all for Harvey and Son at the Bridge Wharf Brewery. (PDF page 10, printed page 6, 2.5.4)
- A historic borehole in the north-east of the site recorded about 3 m of "mixed red earth", then about 12 m of marl and alluvium, with chalk only at 15.24 m below ground. (PDF page 9, printed page 5, 2.5.3)
- Twelve pollution incidents are recorded within 250 m. The nearest (55 m west) was diesel in the Malling Brook in October 1996. All were minor (Category 3). (PDF page 11, printed page 7, 2.7)
- The site is in Flood Zone 3 and in an area with potential for groundwater flooding at the surface. (PDF page 10, printed page 6, 2.5.7)
- Recommendations: a petroleum licensing search before any intrusive work; investigation of made ground under the store footprint; soil and groundwater sampling; and at least four ground gas visits covering worst-case conditions. (PDF page 16, printed page 12, 4.2)
No grounds are published for this document.
Phase 2 Ground Investigation
Remada Ltd · August 2026 · Report No. 1284.02.02 · 93 pages
The report of a ground investigation carried out on 3 and 4 September 2024. Nine shallow window sample holes were drilled, the deepest to 5 m. It finds made ground over very soft clay and very loose sand with groundwater about 1 m down, and says the store will need piled foundations (or concrete columns) and deeper boreholes. It concludes that contamination poses no risk to people, a low risk to groundwater, and that no gas protection or remediation is needed. Pages 31 to 93 are tables, figures, logs and laboratory certificates.
Key facts
- Fieldwork and the site walkover took place on 3 and 4 September 2024. (PDF page 10, printed page 8, 3)
- Made ground (fill with brick, concrete, clinker and tile) is 0.3 m to 1.5 m thick, over chalk fill to as deep as 2.4 m, over soft clay and very loose sand. Deeper made ground is thought likely under the existing buildings. (PDF page 14, printed page 12, 5.1.2)
- Standard penetration test values of 0 to 5 were recorded in the soft ground (0 at 3.0 m and 3.5 m in WS6 near the eastern boundary). Solid chalk was not proven. (PDF page 44, WS6 log)
- Groundwater stood between 0.94 m and 1.5 m below ground in the monitoring wells in September 2024. (PDF page 16, printed page 14, 5.4)
- Shallow pad foundations and stone columns are ruled out. Piled foundations or concrete modulus columns "would be required", with deeper boreholes needed to design them. (PDF page 24, printed page 22, 7.2)
- Ground gas was measured on four visits between 10 and 29 September 2024 in three wells 1 m to 2 m deep. Maximum methane 0.2%, carbon dioxide 3.6%. The site is classed as Characteristic Situation 1 (no gas protection). (PDF page 20, printed page 18, 6.4)
No grounds are published for this document.
Planning, Retail and Economic Statement
Planning Potential · September 2026 · Report reference 25-8521 · 71 pages
The applicant's main planning case, written by its planning agent. It argues that the redesigned store overcomes the reasons the 2025 scheme was refused, that the loss of employment land is acceptable, and that the store passes the retail sequential and impact tests. It concludes that the scheme accords with the development plan and should be approved. It does not mention the public footpath across the site, a time limit on customer parking, or a landscape and visual assessment.
Key facts
- The store would be 2,267 m2 gross with a 1,492 m2 sales area and a 106-space car park. (PDF page 4, printed page 3, 1.3)
- Parking is 89 standard, 6 accessible and 9 parent-and-child spaces plus 2 active EV charging spaces, with 12 cycle spaces on 6 Sheffield stands. (PDF page 23, printed page 22, 5.79)
- The former garage building and part of the car park in the north-east of the site are inside the Brooks Road Principal Employment Site. The only marketing evidence referred to is an email from a local agent (paragraph 5.44, page 19). (PDF page 18, printed page 17, 5.31)
- The only legal agreement payment the statement commits to is GBP 50,000 towards town centre and employment initiatives. (PDF page 20, printed page 19, 5.48)
- The statement says the store could trade 08:00 to 22:00 and receive deliveries 07:00 to 23:00. Plant noise is to be controlled by a planning condition. (PDF page 24, printed page 23, 5.87)
- The site is mainly in Flood Zone 3 with a small area in Flood Zone 2, and lies within groundwater Source Protection Zone 1 over a principal aquifer. (PDF page 6, printed page 5, 2.6)
- The heritage section relies on the applicant's Heritage Impact Assessment, which finds no harm to any heritage asset. (PDF page 22, printed page 21, 5.62)
- The store is forecast to turn over about GBP 14 million in 2029, with 60% of its trade taken from Aldi, about 26% from Tesco and about 9% from Waitrose. (PDF page 33, printed page 32, 6.63)
- The applicant's June 2026 count found 49 vacant town centre units (17.88%), up from 45 in 2024, against a UK average of 13.97%. Convenience shops fell from 20 to 15 over the same period. (PDF page 30, printed page 29, Table 6.1)
- The statement gives biodiversity gains of 140.04% (habitat) and 217.58% (hedgerow). (PDF page 22, printed page 21, 5.71)
Possible grounds for objection
Public footpath across the site is not mentioned at all
The statement never refers to Public Footpath Lewes 60. East Sussex County Council made an Order on 31 July 2026 recording this path across the site from Malling Street to Brooks Road. The statement still claims the scheme accords with policy SD20, which protects existing rights of way, and says nothing has changed on the ground since 2025. The pre-application advice of 17 July 2026 asked the applicant to show how the route could be varied; the statement does not do so, although the application form says a rights-of-way change is needed.
Policies: SD20
Where in the document:
- PDF page 24, printed page 23, 5.83:
The proposals therefore accord with Policies SD19, SD20, and SD22 of the SDNP Local Plan
- PDF page 9, printed page 8, 3.2:
a north-south pedestrian route through the site
- PDF page 3, printed page 2, Executive Summary:
there has been no change to either the policy context or the ‘on the ground’ situation
What to ask for: Require a plan showing the recorded line of Footpath Lewes 60 over the proposed layout, and how it would be kept open or lawfully diverted, before the application is decided.
- PDF page 24, printed page 23, 5.83:
No landscape and visual assessment; refusal reason 1 policies not assessed
The landscape section is three short paragraphs and claims accordance with policy SD4 on the strength of new planting. There is no landscape and visual assessment, which the pre-application advice asked for, and no mention of the Ouse Floodplain landscape character area. Refusal reason 1 also relied on Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policies PL2, HC3A, SS1 and SS2 and on the National Park's first purpose; the statement lists those policies in a table but assesses the scheme against none of them. On heritage it relies wholly on a finding of no harm and does not weigh public benefits in case the Authority again finds harm.
Policies: SD4; SD5; SD12; SD15; Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policies PL2, HC3A, SS1 and SS2
Where in the document:
- PDF page 22, printed page 21, 5.67:
The landscape strategy therefore accords with Policies SD4, SD5, SD11 and SD45 of the SDNPA Local Plan
- PDF page 22, printed page 21, 5.62:
with no harm arising as a result of the proposals
- PDF page 7, printed page 6, 2.10 (refusal reason 1)
- PDF page 14, printed page 13, Table 4.2
What to ask for: Require a landscape and visual assessment with agreed viewpoints, and an assessment against each policy cited in refusal reason 1.
- PDF page 22, printed page 21, 5.67:
Loss of employment land rests on an agent's email
Part of the site is in the Brooks Road Principal Employment Site, where policy SD35 asks for at least 18 months of robust marketing before employment land is lost. The statement offers an email from a local agent, accepts this may not be what the policy envisages, and does not append the email. It lists Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policy HC4 as relevant but never assesses the scheme against it, although HC4 was cited in the 2025 refusal. Officers accepted a departure from the policy in 2025, so this point depends on how much weight members give it.
Policies: SD35; SD34; Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policy HC4
Where in the document:
- PDF page 20, printed page 19, 5.44:
market testing in the form of an email from a local agent consistent with the previous application
- PDF page 20, printed page 19, 5.44:
It is acknowledged that this may not be in the precise form envisaged by policy
- PDF page 19, printed page 18, 5.39:
it is arguable as to whether Policy SD35 is engaged
- PDF page 14, printed page 13, Table 4.2
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require the marketing evidence in full and an assessment against Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policy HC4, and to treat the proposal as a departure from policy SD35 if neither is provided.
- PDF page 20, printed page 19, 5.44:
Only one of the six legal agreement items is offered
Refusal reason 3 listed six things a legal agreement had to secure: a relocation strategy for occupiers, GBP 50,000 for the town centre and employment, GBP 15,000 for air quality, GBP 94,380 for bus services, a GBP 6,000 travel plan fee and real-time bus displays in store. The statement commits only to the GBP 50,000. It contains no draft heads of terms, and its summaries of the 2025 refusal at paragraphs 1.2 and 7.3 leave reason 3 out. A legal agreement can be negotiated during the application, but as submitted this reason for refusal is not answered.
Policies: SD19; SD35; SD54; Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policy HC4
Where in the document:
- PDF page 7, printed page 6, 2.10:
In the absence of a completed legal agreement, the proposal fails to secure provision for
- PDF page 20, printed page 19, 5.48:
will contribute £50,000 towards town centre and employment initiatives
- PDF page 35, printed page 34, 7.3:
refused in December 2025 on design, heritage and noise amenity grounds
What to ask for: Require agreed heads of terms covering every item in refusal reason 3 before the application goes to committee.
- PDF page 7, printed page 6, 2.10:
Plant noise left to a condition; deliveries sought until 23:00
The 2025 scheme was refused partly for lack of noise information. The statement says plant noise will be controlled by condition, and the noise report it relies on confirms the plant has not yet been specified. It seeks deliveries from 07:00 to 23:00, whereas the Environmental Protection officer has objected and recommends that deliveries end at 21:00, and at 17:00 on Sundays. The statement also describes unloading without a tailgate, while the noise report assesses pallets moving over the tailgate.
Policies: SD5; SD7; SD54
Where in the document:
- PDF page 24, printed page 23, 5.87:
Plant noise will be controlled by condition
- PDF page 24, printed page 23, 5.87:
deliveries could be received between 0700-2300 without causing adverse impacts for adjacent residents
- PDF page 24, printed page 23, 5.88:
without the use of a tailgate or any lifting equipment
- PDF page 24, printed page 23, 5.89
What to ask for: Require plant noise to be assessed before the decision, and delivery hours no longer than those recommended by Environmental Protection.
- PDF page 24, printed page 23, 5.87:
Job gains overstated when compared with the application form
The statement presents 40 new local jobs as a main benefit and describes the site as largely vacant, with no jobs being generated on most of it. The application form gives 5 full-time and 35 part-time posts, which it states as 23 full-time equivalent, and records 18 existing full-time employees on a site it says is not vacant. On those figures the net gain is about 5 full-time equivalent jobs. This matters because job creation is weighed against the loss of employment land and any harm to heritage.
Policies: SD34; SD35
Where in the document:
- PDF page 3, printed page 2, Executive Summary:
will create 40 new local jobs
- PDF page 18, printed page 17, 5.24:
no jobs are currently being generated
- PDF page 5, printed page 4, 2.2
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to assess the economic benefits on net full-time equivalent jobs, and to require a clear statement of who occupies the site now and how many people work there.
- PDF page 3, printed page 2, Executive Summary:
Town centre called healthy despite rising vacancy and higher impact
The applicant's own count shows town centre vacancy rising to 17.88% (18.24% in the appendix), against a UK average of 13.97%, yet the statement calls vacancy relatively low. The forecast loss of food trade from the town centre has risen from the 4.62% reviewed for the Authority in 2025 to just over 6%, or 7% with the approved Aldi extension. The shopping survey behind the figures dates from 2024. The impact table contains arithmetic errors, including a negative turnover figure for Aldi, and the text refers to a Table 18 that is not in the document.
Policies: SD38
Where in the document:
- PDF page 30, printed page 29, Table 6.1
- PDF page 32, printed page 31, 6.54:
Vacancy rates were identified to be relatively low
- PDF page 47, printed page Appendix 3, page 2, 1.8:
representing approximately 18.24% of the total 352 units surveyed
- PDF page 27, printed page 26, 6.7:
forecast -4.62% convenience goods impact on Lewes Town Centre
- PDF page 33, printed page 32, 6.66:
This estimates a solus convenience impact on Lewes Town Centre of just over 6%
- PDF page 71, Appendix 4, Table 17
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to have the updated retail impact assessment independently reviewed again, with the tables corrected.
Parking limit, cycle and EV provision fall short of pre-application advice
The pre-application advice asked for a two-hour limit on customer parking, cycle parking for 15 staff and 15 customers with showers, and one EV charge point for every five spaces. The statement proposes 12 cycle spaces and 2 active EV charging spaces for 106 car spaces, and does not mention any time limit on parking. It still concludes that the scheme accords with policy SD22.
Policies: SD22; SD19
Where in the document:
- PDF page 23, printed page 22, 5.79:
2 active EV charging spaces
- PDF page 23, printed page 22, 5.79:
secure cycle parking for 12 bicycles
- PDF page 24, printed page 23, 5.83
What to ask for: Require cycle and EV provision that meets the Authority's parking standards, and a two-hour customer parking limit secured by condition or legal agreement.
- PDF page 23, printed page 22, 5.79:
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Biodiverse Consulting · V1.3 dated 26/08/2026 (first issued 1 October 2024) · BIOC24-052 V1.3 · 34 pages
A desk study and a single walkover survey of the site, carried out on 10 September 2024. It finds the site is almost all buildings and hard surfacing with low wildlife value. It rates all six buildings as of negligible value for roosting bats and says no further surveys are needed. It recommends standard precautions: nesting-bird checks, bat-sensitive lighting, a construction ecology plan, hedgehog gaps, bat and bird boxes and native planting.
Key facts
- All six buildings to be demolished were rated 'negligible' for roosting bats from a daytime inspection. No bat emergence or activity surveys were recommended, and none were done. (PDF page 17, printed page 17, 3.2.3.2 and Table 4 (pp18-21); 4.2 (p23))
- The site is in the South Downs National Park. Lewes Downs SAC and SSSI is 220 m away, the Railway Land Local Nature Reserve 340 m, Lewes Brooks SSSI 1,210 m and the River Ouse 130 m. (PDF page 11, printed page 11, 3.1.1, Table 2 (pp11-13); 3.1.5 (p14))
- Habitats recorded: 0.025 ha of mown grass, three sycamores about 12 m tall at the south-west corner, and a 37 m native hedgerow with trees. The rest is buildings and hard surfacing. (PDF page 15, printed page 15-16, 3.2.1)
- Lighting: the report says external lighting 'will be designed in line with BCT guidance' to limit effects on bats, including in the adjacent woodland. It cites the 2018 guidance note. (PDF page 23, printed page 23, 4.3)
- Birds: site clearance should avoid March to August unless an ecologist confirms no active nests within 48 hours of work starting. (PDF page 23, printed page 23, 4.3)
- Recommended measures: a Construction Ecological Management Plan, daytime working only, 13 cm hedgehog gaps in boundaries, bat and bird boxes in retained trees, and native planting. (PDF page 24, printed page 24, 4.4-4.5)
- Rights of way: the report does not mention any public right of way on or near the site. The only reference is to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in the legislation appendix. (PDF page 29, printed page 29, Appendix D)
No grounds are published for this document.
Proposed Building Sections
Whittam Cox Architects · July 2026 · Job 240129, drawing PL-109, no revision letter; sections 1:100, reference plan 1:500, at A1 · 1 page
Four cross-sections through the store at 1:100, with a small plan showing where they are cut. They show the stepped roof over the sales floor and the plant well, an open-topped deck above the warehouse and chiller at the delivery end. The sections carry no dimensions or levels, though scaled from the drawing the heights agree with the elevations (about 8.9 m and 9.9 m). There is little to raise on this sheet alone.
Key facts
- The plant well is an open-topped deck roughly 4 m above floor level, enclosed by walls rising to the roof line. No plant is drawn in it. (PDF page 1, Sections 2 and 3, 'Plant Well')
- No figured heights, floor level or ground levels are given on any of the four sections. (PDF page 1, Whole sheet)
No grounds are published for this document.
Proposed Elevations
Whittam Cox Architects · July 2026 (Revision D dated 06/08/26) · Job 240129, drawing PL-107, Rev D; 1:150 at A1 · 1 page
Coloured drawings of the four sides of the store with a materials key. The building has a stepped 'saw-tooth' roof 8.9 m high, rising to 9.88 m at the plant enclosure at the north-west end. Walls are red and buff brick with flint panels, timber cladding above, and dark grey metal cladding at the delivery end. The key lists internally illuminated signs, and a note says signage is indicative and will be applied for separately.
Key facts
- Heights marked: 8,900 mm at each roof step, 9,880 mm at the plant enclosure, 6,900 mm at its low end, canopy at 4,109 to 4,900 mm. The datum is not stated; the site sections give the floor level as +4.50 m, which would put the highest point at about 14.4 m. (PDF page 1, Level markers on all four elevations)
- Materials key: flint panels (01), vertical timber cladding (02), dark red, light red and grey/buff brick (03, 12, 13), dark grey standing-seam aluminium (07, 15), 'Perspex curtain wall panelling' (16), dark grey doors, canopy and trim. (PDF page 1, KEY, right-hand side)
- Signs tagged '09 Internally illuminated sign': a Lidl logo on the east (car park) and south (Malling Street) elevations and a projecting sign at the entrance canopy. Four poster-style panels are also drawn on the east elevation and are not in the key. (PDF page 1, Tags 09 on north, east, south and west elevations; east elevation)
- The delivery dock door ('servicing dockshelter') is on the east-facing wall at the north end, and louvres are drawn at high level on the north elevation. (PDF page 1, East elevation, right-hand end (tag 05); north elevation)
Possible grounds for objection
Internally illuminated signs shown, against pre-application advice
The key identifies the Lidl signs as internally illuminated, and large poster panels are drawn on the wall facing the car park and the homes beyond. The pre-application advice asked for muted, non-illuminated signage, and the conservation officer's comments quoted in the Heritage Impact Assessment asked for bespoke signage in more muted colours. The site is in an International Dark Sky Reserve. A note defers signage to a later advertisement application, so the Authority is asked to judge the design, on a site refused for design and heritage reasons in 2025, without knowing what the signage will be.
Policies: SD8; SD5; SD12; SD15
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, KEY, item 09, right-hand side:
Internally illuminated sign
- PDF page 1, Note at the foot of the KEY:
Signage shown is indicative and will be sought through a separate advertisement application.
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require elevations showing non-illuminated, muted signage now, or to make clear that the illuminated signs and poster panels shown are not approved.
- PDF page 1, KEY, item 09, right-hand side:
Proposed Hard Landscaping and Boundary Treatment Plan
Whittam Cox Architects · July 2026 (rev E dated 25/08/26) · 240129 PL-108 rev E · 1 page
The architect's plan of surfaces and boundaries at 1:250, with a photo key. It shows seven boundary types, from a 0.9 m knee rail on the road frontages to a new flint wall on Malling Street. For the walls next to the Malling Street homes it says only that they will be reviewed after demolition.
Key facts
- Boundary types in the key: existing brick wall of the neighbouring building (repair and maintain); flint wall replacing the brick retaining wall, with 1.2 m stainless steel guarding on top; 'boundary walls to be reviewed'; 0.9 m timber knee rail; brick wall with railing; brick wall; hedge. (PDF page 1, Key 'Proposed Boundary Treatments', centre of sheet)
- Heights are given only for the knee rail (0.9 m), the guarding (1.2 m) and bollards (1.2 m). No height is given for any wall or hedge. (PDF page 1, Key)
- No acoustic fence, no gates and no barrier at the vehicle entrance are shown. Brooks Road and Davey's Lane are bounded by the knee rail and hedge. (PDF page 1, Plan and key)
- Surfaces: tarmac roads, car park and footpaths; dark grey block paving round the store; a concrete delivery ramp. A store for 12 cycles is shown by the entrance. (PDF page 1, Key 'Proposed Hard Landscaping Treatments')
Possible grounds for objection
No route for Public Footpath Lewes 60; frontage walled across
Public Footpath Lewes 60 (East Sussex County Council Order RWO 330, made 31 July 2026 and confirmed on 2 October 2026) crosses the site from Malling Street to Brooks Road. This is the drawing that fixes boundaries and surfaces, and it shows no public footpath. East of the ramp entrance the Malling Street frontage is drawn as a continuous flint wall with 1.2 m guarding, where the survey base of the engineering levels drawing (in 2376068, PDF p44) records existing steps. The line of the Order then crosses parking bays, aisles and the service area. No gates, signs or alternative route for the footpath are shown.
Policies: SD20
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Plan: yellow dashed line along Malling Street to the south-east corner; key, second item:
Flint wall to replace brick retaining wall with stainless steel guarding fixed on top - 1.2m
What to ask for: Require the definitive line of Footpath Lewes 60 to be plotted on this plan, with either a layout that keeps it open or a defined alternative route, before determination.
- PDF page 1, Plan: yellow dashed line along Malling Street to the south-east corner; key, second item:
Boundaries with neighbouring homes are not defined
The walls on the east boundary are to be 'reviewed' once the existing building is removed, then repaired or replaced 'as appropriate'. No heights are given, and no acoustic screen is shown between the car park and the homes. The engineering levels drawing (in 2376068, PDF p44) marks neighbouring ground levels on this boundary as 'assumed' and retention as 'to be confirmed'. The pre-application advice asked for boundary treatment details, and noise to neighbours was a reason for refusal in 2025.
Policies: SD5; Lewes Neighbourhood Plan policy HC3A
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Key, third item (orange dashed line on east boundary):
Boundary walls to be reviewed on removal of existing building - existing walls to be repaired and maintained or replaced as appropriate
- PDF page 1, Key, first item (blue dashed line beside the Old Brewery):
Existing brick wall of neighbouring building to be repaired and maintained as appropriate
What to ask for: Ask for a wall-by-wall survey and a fixed boundary design with heights and levels, agreed before the application is decided, not left to a later review.
- PDF page 1, Key, third item (orange dashed line on east boundary):
Wall replacement shown beside the retained cherry
The new flint wall is drawn through the canopy of the existing cherry at the south-east corner, and the east boundary wall 'to be reviewed' meets it there. Demolishing and rebuilding walls this close to the tree is not assessed in the tree report (2376077), which proposes only fencing on the car park side.
Policies: SD11
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Plan, south-east corner: yellow and orange dashed lines at the existing tree
What to ask for: Ask for the wall works at the south-east corner to be assessed in a revised tree report.
Proposed Roof Plan
Whittam Cox Architects · July 2026 (Revision A dated 22/07/26) · Job 240129, drawing PL-106, Rev A; 1:200 at A1 · 1 page
A plan of the roof. The store has four stepped mono-pitch roofs, each falling at 7 degrees, covered with solar panels, and an open plant well at the north-west (delivery) end. No rooflights are shown, which is helpful for dark skies. The plant well is marked as indicative only, and the drawing gives no roof levels and no north point.
Key facts
- About 335 solar panels are drawn across the four roof slopes (our count from the drawing). The energy statement gives 655 m2 of panels. (PDF page 1, Roof plan; label 'Photovoltaic panels as designed by engineers')
- The plant well is at the north-west corner of the building, on the Brooks Road and Davey's Lane side, away from the Malling Street homes. Its size is described as indicative. (PDF page 1, Top right of the roof plan)
- No rooflights, no green or brown roof and no individual items of plant are shown. (PDF page 1, Whole roof plan)
- Each roof slope falls at 7 degrees towards the north (delivery) end of the building. (PDF page 1, '7º FALL' arrows)
Possible grounds for objection
Rooftop plant is indicative only
The plant well is drawn as an empty box with a note that its size is indicative and that requirements are to be confirmed by the mechanical and electrical engineer. No plant items, screens or louvres are shown on the plan. The 2025 application was refused partly for insufficient noise information, and members questioned plant noise. If the plant is not yet fixed, the noise assessment rests on assumptions that the approved drawings would not secure.
Policies: SD7; SD54; SD5
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Label above the plant well, top right of the roof plan:
Plant well indicative size - requirements to be confirmed by M&E Engineer
What to ask for: Ask for a roof plan showing the actual plant, its enclosure and any acoustic screening, matched to the noise report, before a decision.
- PDF page 1, Label above the plant well, top right of the roof plan:
Proposed Site Plan
Whittam Cox Architects · July 2026 (Revision G dated 25/08/26) · Job 240129, drawing PL-103, Rev G; 1:250 at A1 · 1 page
The main layout drawing. The store sits on the Brooks Road (west) side with its entrance at the Malling Street corner, the delivery bay along its north side and a plant well at roof level in the north-west corner. A single vehicle access from the Brooks Road roundabout serves both lorries and the 106-space customer car park, which fills the east of the site next to the homes on Thomas Street and Malling Street. The drawing, which notes that the building has been relocated since the previous application, gives no ground levels, no boundary heights and no distances to neighbours, and it does not show the public footpath that crosses the site.
Key facts
- Parking schedule: 106 spaces = 89 standard, 6 disabled, 9 parent and child, 2 electric vehicle (EV) bays. A further 21 bays are hatched as 'passive' EV provision (ducting only). 12 cycle spaces are marked by the entrance. (PDF page 1, Parking Schedule table, right-hand side; yellow-hatched bays on north side; '12no. cycles' south of store)
- Floor areas: sales 1,492 m2, warehouse 561 m2, ancillary 214 m2; gross internal area 2,267 m2; gross external area 2,349 m2. (PDF page 1, 'Areas - Type 15 Model' table)
- Scaled from the drawing (no figured dimensions are given): the ends of the parking bays are about 1.5 m from the site boundary at the corner beside 50 Malling Street and about 6 m from the boundary behind Thomas Street. The delivery dock door is roughly 95 to 100 m from those homes and about 48 m from the walled garden of 1 to 9 The Old Brewery. (PDF page 1, Plan, east boundary and north side of store)
- Retaining walls are drawn (dashed blue-green line) beside the Old Brewery garden, at the north-east corner behind Thomas Street, by the Malling Street ramp and around the south of the store. No heights are given; the plan refers to the engineer's 'Levels & Retention' layout instead. (PDF page 1, Key 'Retaining wall' and note below it)
Possible grounds for objection
Layout is drawn across Public Footpath Lewes 60
The plan does not show Footpath Lewes 60 (Order RWO 330, made 31 July 2026 and confirmed on 2 October 2026), although this revision is dated 25 August 2026. Plotting the Order's grid coordinates onto the drawing (a campaign overlay, accurate to about a metre and checked against the steps and passage shown on the existing site plan) puts the route along the lorry delivery bay, through about 6 m of the north-east corner of the store, across parent-and-child bays, the car park entrance used by reversing lorries, a rain garden and parking bays. The application form answers 'Yes' to diversions of rights of way and says 'Please see proposed site plan and Transport Assessment', but this plan shows no existing route and no diversion. The pre-application advice asked for a demonstration of how the route could be varied.
Policies: SD20; SD19; NPPF: protecting and enhancing public rights of way
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Drawing PL-103 Rev G: delivery bay north of the store, north-east corner of the store, parent-and-child bays, car park entrance and western rain garden; no right of way notation anywhere on the sheet
- PDF page 1, Label at top left, pointing to the vehicle access:
Access slightly modified from previous
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to require a plan showing the legal line of Footpath Lewes 60 over the proposed layout and, before any decision, either a layout that keeps the route open or a worked-up diversion that the public can comment on.
No levels, distances or boundary details beside the homes
The plan gives no ground levels, no dimensions to the boundaries and no boundary wall or fence heights along the east side, where parking comes within a few metres of homes. Levels are left to an engineering layout that is only found inside the flood risk assessment; that layout marks the levels at the east boundary as 'assumed', to be confirmed after more survey. It also says it is based on this plan as received on 15 July 2026, and the plan has been revised seven times since (Revisions A to G). The pre-application advice asked for boundary treatment details; without them the effect of car park noise, headlights and lighting on neighbours cannot be judged from the drawings.
Policies: SD5; SD7; SD8
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Note under the 'Retaining wall' key, right-hand side:
For proposed levels strategy please refer to Mayer
- PDF page 1, Revision box above the title block: Revisions A (21/07/26) to G (25/08/26):
Tactile paving included
What to ask for: Ask for a dimensioned site plan with existing and proposed levels, and the height and type of every boundary wall and fence next to homes, based on surveyed (not assumed) levels.
- PDF page 1, Note under the 'Retaining wall' key, right-hand side:
Lorries turn in the car park entrance and across pedestrian routes
There is one vehicle access. The lorry tracking drawn on the plan shows delivery vehicles driving into the mouth of the customer car park and reversing back into the delivery bay. The tracks run over the marked pedestrian crossing at the car park entrance and alongside the parent-and-child bays, and the footway from the Brooks Road access appears to end beside the delivery bay. The pre-application advice asked for a strategy for pedestrian routes from all directions; this drawing does not set one out.
Policies: SD19; SD21
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Drawing PL-103 Rev G: vehicle tracking lines between the delivery bay and the car park entrance, north-east of the store
What to ask for: Ask for a road safety audit of the shared lorry and customer area, a plan of pedestrian routes from each direction, and controls on delivery times.
Lorry yard beside the Old Brewery garden, no screening shown
Deliveries and plant have been placed on the side of the store away from Malling Street, which increases their distance from those homes. But the lorry turning area comes within about 10 m (scaled) of the walled garden of 1 to 9 The Old Brewery, and the delivery dock faces east across the open car park. No acoustic fence or screen is drawn anywhere on the plan, and a note says plant requirements are still to be reviewed. Insufficient noise information was a reason for refusal in 2025, so the noise report should be checked against exactly what this plan shows.
Policies: SD7; SD54; SD5
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Label on west side pointing to the north-west corner of the store:
Plant well located at roof
- PDF page 1, Hazard Warning Schedule, 'Plant access' row:
Access to plant to be reviewed once plant requirements are reviewed
What to ask for: Ask the Authority to confirm that the noise assessment models this layout, with fixed plant details, and to require any screening it relies on to be shown on the approved plans.
- PDF page 1, Label on west side pointing to the north-west corner of the store:
Proposed Site Sections
Whittam Cox Architects · July 2026 (Revision A dated 05/08/26) · Job 240129, drawing PL-110, Rev A; sections 1:150, reference plan 1:1000, at A1 · 1 page
Two long sections through the whole site with spot levels: one west to east from Brooks Road through the store and car park to the east boundary, and one from Malling Street through the store to Davey's Lane. They show the store floor at +4.50 m and the car park a little lower. Both sections stop at the red line. They show no neighbouring buildings or gardens, no boundary walls or fences, no building heights and no existing ground line.
Key facts
- Store finished floor level: +4.50 m. The sheet does not say so, but the levels appear to be metres above Ordnance Datum. (PDF page 1, 'FFL +4.50' on both sections)
- Section 1 (west to east): +4.76 m at the Brooks Road boundary; car park between +3.85 and +4.22 m; +4.10 m at the edge of the planting and +4.00 m at the east boundary. (PDF page 1, Section 1 spot levels)
- Section 2 (south to north): +5.28 m at the Malling Street boundary, falling to +3.80 m in the car park and +3.02 m at the Davey's Lane boundary. (PDF page 1, Section 2 spot levels)
- For levels the sheet refers to the engineer's 'Levels & Retention' layout, which is not a separate application drawing; a copy is inside the flood risk assessment. (PDF page 1, NOTE, top right, below the north point)
Possible grounds for objection
Sections stop at the boundary and leave out the neighbours
Neither section shows what is on the other side of the red line: the homes and gardens on Thomas Street and Malling Street, the Old Brewery, or the level of their land. No boundary wall, fence or retaining wall is drawn, and no building height is given. The +4.00 m level at the east boundary matches a level marked 'assumed' on the engineering layout the sheet relies on, which says adjacent levels are to be confirmed after further survey. The pre-application advice asked for boundary treatment details, and the relationship with neighbours and heritage assets was central to the 2025 refusal.
Policies: SD5; SD12; SD7
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Section 1, east (right-hand) end at the red boundary marker:
+4.00
- PDF page 1, NOTE, top right:
For proposed levels strategy please refer to Mayer Browns
What to ask for: Ask for sections carried through the east boundary into the neighbouring plots, including one beside 50 Malling Street and one through the Old Brewery garden, with surveyed levels, boundary structures and building heights.
- PDF page 1, Section 1, east (right-hand) end at the red boundary marker:
Proposed Store Plan
Whittam Cox Architects · July 2026 (Revision B dated 10/08/26) · Job 240129, drawing PL-105, Rev B; 1:200 at A1 · 1 page
The ground floor plan of the store. It shows a single sales floor about 62 m long and 22.7 m wide, a warehouse and chiller with a plant platform above at the delivery end, a bakery and second warehouse on the car park side, and a small staff area. It is a standard internal layout and raises little on its own. The footprint it fixes is what matters: on the site plan, the north-east corner of this building sits on the route of the public footpath (see the Proposed Site Plan entry).
Key facts
- Sales floor 1,492 m2; warehouse 561 m2; ancillary 214 m2; gross internal area 2,267 m2; gross external area 2,349 m2. (PDF page 1, 'Areas - Type 15 Model' table, top right)
- Figured dimensions: sales floor 62,000 mm long by 22,700 mm wide. (PDF page 1, Dimension lines across the sales floor)
- Staff rooms shown: canteen, meeting room, cloakroom, changing room, two WCs, IT and cash rooms. No shower is shown. (PDF page 1, Staff area at the south-west of the building)
- 12 cycle spaces (six hoops) are drawn outside the entrance. (PDF page 1, '12no. cycles' label by the lobby)
No grounds are published for this document.
Proposed Street Scene Elevations
Whittam Cox Architects · July 2026 (Revision B dated 06/08/26) · Job 240129, drawing PL-111, Rev B; 1:250 at A1 · 1 page
Three long views of the store in its setting: from Malling Street, from Brooks Road and from Davey's Lane. The store is drawn in colour; neighbouring buildings appear as plain white or grey blocks. Only one neighbour is named, the Grade II listed 'Registered offices of EO Culverwell' on the Davey's Lane view. There is no view of the site from the east, where homes back onto it.
Key facts
- Three views are given: Malling Street, Brooks Road and Davey's Lane. None looks at the site from the Thomas Street or Malling Street homes on the east side. (PDF page 1, Three street scenes and key plan, top right)
- Trees are drawn at a mature size and in full leaf in front of the store on all three views. (PDF page 1, All three street scenes)
Possible grounds for objection
No view from the homes or showing the east boundary
The homes on Thomas Street and Malling Street that back onto the car park are not identified on any of the three views, and there is no street scene or section looking at the site from that side. Planting is drawn at maturity and in leaf, which shows the best case rather than the day the store opens or the winter view. No landscape and visual assessment was submitted, although the pre-application advice asked for one, so these drawings carry more weight than usual.
Policies: SD4; SD5; SD15
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Malling Street street scene, right-hand end: unlabelled white and grey building outlines beyond 'Lidl Foodstore Parking'
- PDF page 1, Key plan, top right, showing the three view lines
What to ask for: Ask for an additional street scene and sections through the east boundary showing the neighbouring homes, with planting shown at planting size as well as at maturity.
Sections (landscape)
Ares Landscape Architects · Revision P01 issued 28/08/2026 (title block 'drawn date' 07/03/2025) · 886-ALA-ZZ-ZZ-D-L-9007, Rev P01; 1:250 at A1 · 1 page
Three landscape sections through the site against a height grid, with a key plan. They show the store as a plain box with its top at about 14.3 m on the grid (floor level +4.50 m, so roughly 9.8 m tall), the car park, planting and the walls at the site edges. They are the only drawings that label boundary structures: an 'existing wall' on the east boundary, new brick walls, and a flint wall on Malling Street. None of the sections shows a neighbouring building or garden, and wall heights are not given.
Key facts
- Store floor level +4.50 m; the top of the store is drawn at about 14.3 m on the height grid. The delivery bay floor is at +3.53 m, about 1 m below the shop floor. (PDF page 1, Sections A-A' and B-B')
- East boundary (section A-A'): car park edge +4.10 m, boundary +4.00 m, with a low 'Existing Wall' drawn on the boundary. No home or garden is shown beyond it. (PDF page 1, Section A-A', right-hand end)
- Malling Street boundary: existing level +5.40 m with a proposed brick wall inside it (section B-B'); further east a proposed flint wall at +5.07 m above an accessible ramp at +4.27 to +4.42 m (section C-C'). (PDF page 1, Sections B-B' and C-C', right-hand ends)
- North end of section C-C', beside the Old Brewery garden: an 'Existing Wall' with ground at +3.00 m, then a new brick retaining wall with the car park at +3.68 m. (PDF page 1, Section C-C', left-hand end)
Possible grounds for objection
Neighbouring homes not shown; east boundary wall undefined
Only one section reaches the east boundary and it ends at the red line with a small 'Existing Wall', with no height, no neighbouring ground level and no house or garden drawn. Other application drawings say the boundary walls are to be reviewed, and repaired or replaced, once the existing building is removed, so what will actually stand between the car park and the homes is not fixed. No section is cut beside 50 Malling Street, where the land is higher than the car park. The pre-application advice asked for boundary treatment details.
Policies: SD5; SD7; SD12
Where in the document:
- PDF page 1, Section A-A', east (right-hand) end: label 'Existing Wall' at the site boundary:
+4.00m
- PDF page 1, Key plan, bottom left, showing section lines A-A', B-B' and C-C'
What to ask for: Ask for sections through each stretch of the east boundary showing the homes, garden levels and the height and construction of the wall or fence proposed.
- PDF page 1, Section A-A', east (right-hand) end: label 'Existing Wall' at the site boundary:
Site Location Plan
Whittam Cox Architects · July 2026 · Job 240129, drawing PL-101, no revision letter; 1:1250 at A3 · 1 page
An Ordnance Survey plan at 1:1250 with the application site edged in red. The red line takes in 9,450 square metres between Brooks Road, Davey's Lane and Malling Street, and wraps around (but leaves out) the walled garden of 1 to 9 The Old Brewery. We overlaid it on the existing and proposed site plans and the red lines match. The plan does the job a location plan is meant to do and we found nothing of substance to raise.
Key facts
- Site area is given as 2.34 acres / 9,450 square metres. (PDF page 1, Key, right-hand side of sheet)
- The red line runs along the backs of the homes on Thomas Street and the side of 50 Malling Street, and includes the buildings marked 46, 48 and 48a ('Wellers Yard') and both 'Garage' buildings. (PDF page 1, Plan, east and south-east boundary)
- The red line stops at the edge of the Brooks Road roundabout arm. No other land is edged blue. (PDF page 1, Plan, north-west corner)
- No public right of way is marked. A location plan is not normally expected to show one; the point is taken up under the Proposed Site Plan. (PDF page 1, Whole sheet)
No grounds are published for this document.
Statement of Community Involvement
Royal Pilgrim Communications · September 2026 · 16 pages
The applicant's account of its consultation before applying. A leaflet with a feedback form went to 9,317 addresses, with a neighbour letter, a website, a press release and contact with councillors and Lewes Town Council. It reports 858 responses, with 60.5% in support and 35.4% against. It lists the themes raised but does not identify any change made to the scheme as a result of this consultation.
Key facts
- The leaflet and feedback form were sent to 9,317 addresses in Lewes and the surrounding area. (PDF page 4, printed page 3, Consultation)
- 858 responses are reported: Yes 509 (60.5%), No 304 (35.4%), Unsure 35 (4.1%). (PDF page 6, printed page 5, Feedback summary)
- Objectors' main themes are listed as traffic and congestion, the need for another supermarket, whether another location would be better, design, and pedestrian safety, parking and delivery vehicles. (PDF page 7, printed page 6, Feedback)
- The statement describes the 2025 refusal as being about design, neighbour amenity and heritage. It does not mention the third reason, the missing legal agreement. (PDF page 2, printed page 1, Introduction)
- Feedback was still arriving at submission, and an addendum is promised. (PDF page 6, printed page 5, Feedback summary)
- No public exhibition, drop-in or public meeting is described. A presentation to Lewes Town Council's Planning Committee is recorded. (PDF page 5, printed page 4, Stakeholders)
No grounds are published for this document.
Transport Assessment
Mayer Brown Limited · August 2026 · Final 03 (report ref 260818 - LIDL Brooks Rd, Lewes - TA) · 193 pages
The applicant's assessment of traffic, access, servicing and parking. It predicts over 2,100 vehicle movements a day at the store but treats almost all of them as trips that are already on local roads, and concludes there would be no significant effect on the Brooks Road and A2029 roundabouts. It says 106 car spaces are enough and that the scheme meets policies SD19 to SD22. It does not mention Public Footpath Lewes 60, delivery hours, construction traffic or any discussion with the highway authority on this application.
Key facts
- Predicted store traffic: about 2,156 vehicle movements on a weekday and 2,247 on a Saturday (arrivals plus departures), with 98 in the weekday morning peak hour, about 195 in the afternoon peak hour and 208 in the Saturday peak hour. (PDF page 22, printed page 18, 5.10 to 5.12, Tables 6.1 and 6.2)
- The trip rates do not come from the national TRICS database. They come from number-plate camera data supplied by Lidl for one store, at Crowborough (1,799 sqm), scaled up to the 2,267 sqm proposed here. (PDF page 21, printed page 17, 5.5 to 5.8; Appendix G (PDF page 111))
- After discounts for pass-by, diverted and 'transferred' shopping trips, the report says only 9, 19 and 28 vehicle movements an hour are new to local roads in the weekday morning, weekday afternoon and Saturday peaks. (PDF page 26, printed page 22, 5.29, Table 6.3)
- Traffic counts and queue surveys were done on one weekday and one Saturday: Thursday 27 February and Saturday 1 March 2025. Peak hours assessed are 08:00-09:00, 15:30-16:30 and Saturday 13:30-14:30. (PDF page 10, printed page 6, 2.9 to 2.11)
- Brooks Road / A2029 Malling Street / Phoenix Causeway roundabout: the busiest arm is modelled at 78% of capacity in the 2031 morning peak with or without the store, and 71% rising to 73% in the afternoon peak, with queues of 2 to 3 vehicles. No arm reaches the 85% level the report treats as the practical limit. The A26 Cuilfail roundabout was not modelled. (PDF page 30, printed page 26, 6.18, 6.22, 6.27, Table 7.3)
- Seven injury collisions were recorded nearby in the five years to November 2024: three serious and four slight. Two involved cyclists and two involved motorcyclists. The data was obtained in February 2025. (PDF page 10, printed page 6, 2.13 to 2.18)
- Parking: 106 spaces against a County Council 'optimum' of 162. Six are blue badge spaces and nine are parent and child spaces. Paragraph 4.11 gives 2 active electric vehicle spaces; paragraph 7.6 gives four. Predicted peak demand is 85 spaces on a Saturday. (PDF page 32, printed page 28, 4.11, 7.2 to 7.6, 7.17)
- Servicing: up to 3 lorry deliveries a day on average, by 16.5 m articulated lorry, to a single loading bay. The swept path drawing shows the lorry driving through the car park entrance area and reversing into the bay. No delivery hours are given. (PDF page 19, printed page 15, 4.17 to 4.20; Appendix F drawing B/LIDLBROOKSRD2.1/TK02 rev P1 (PDF page 109))
- The report contains no assessment of demolition or construction traffic and reports no pre-application or scoping discussion with East Sussex County Council highways. (PDF page 18, printed page 14, 4.3)
Possible grounds for objection
Public Footpath Lewes 60 is not acknowledged or protected
The report quotes policy SD20 as requiring existing rights of way to be maintained, but it does not identify any right of way on the site. Footpath Lewes 60 (East Sussex County Council Order RWO 330) is not mentioned anywhere in the 193 pages, and no route for it, or diversion of it, is shown. When the Order route is plotted on the layout, its western section runs through the loading bay and the area where the swept path drawing shows a 16.5 m lorry reversing. The application form answers 'yes' to whether rights of way need to be diverted or extinguished and refers the reader to the site plan and this Transport Assessment for details, but neither shows any. The pre-application advice also asked for the footpath route to be addressed.
Policies: SD20; SD21; SD19
Where in the document:
- PDF page 7, printed page 3, 1.13:
any existing rights of way must be maintained
- PDF page 17, printed page 13, 3.24
- PDF page 109, Appendix F, drawing B/LIDLBROOKSRD2.1/TK02 rev P1: 'IN' panel, loading bay north of the store and reversing track across the car park entrance
- PDF page 105, Appendix D, Proposed Site Plan 240129 PL-103 rev G: no public footpath shown
What to ask for: Require a plan showing the legal line of Footpath Lewes 60 on the proposed layout, and either a layout that keeps the path open and safe or a formal diversion proposal, before the application is decided.
- PDF page 7, printed page 3, 1.13:
Trip rates from one Lidl store; busiest store hours not tested
All trip rates come from camera data supplied by the applicant for a single, smaller store in Crowborough. The raw data is not provided, and the text says September 2024 while the appendix says September and October. The Saturday hour tested (13:30-14:30) has 208 store movements, but the store's own busiest Saturday hour (11:00-12:00) has 248, and the weekday afternoon hour tested is 15:30-16:30. Road counts are from one late-winter weekday and one Saturday in 2025, and collision data stops at November 2024.
Policies: SD19
Where in the document:
- PDF page 21, printed page 17, 5.5:
rather than sites extracted from TRICS
- PDF page 21, printed page 17, 5.7:
provided by Lidl for September 2024
- PDF page 111, Appendix G, heading of the trip rate table:
Sep + Oct 2024
- PDF page 23, printed page 19, Table 6.2: 11:00-12:00 total 248; 13:30-14:30 total 208
- PDF page 10, printed page 6, 2.9:
Thursday 27th February and Saturday 1st March 2025
What to ask for: Ask for a comparison with TRICS discount food store rates, a test of the store's busiest Saturday hour, and up-to-date collision records.
- PDF page 21, printed page 17, 5.5:
Lorries reverse through the car park entrance and pedestrian crossing
The text says delivery lorries leave in forward gear but does not say that they must reverse to reach the loading bay. The swept path drawing shows a 16.5 m articulated lorry driving nose-first onto the marked pedestrian crossing at the car park entrance and then reversing about 30 m across the only route between the site access and the main car park. The turning area is at the north-east of the site, roughly 10 m from the boundary with The Old Brewery homes when scaled from the plan. The report gives no delivery hours, no cap on daily deliveries and no delivery management plan, and noise from deliveries was a reason for refusal in 2025.
Policies: SD21; SD19; SD5
Where in the document:
- PDF page 19, printed page 15, 4.19:
Delivery vehicles access the site via the vehicular access before manoeuvring within the site to access the loading bay
- PDF page 20, printed page 16, 4.20:
leaving the site in a forward gear
- PDF page 19, printed page 15, 4.17:
Lidl stores typically generate up to 3 HGV deliveries per day on average during a week
- PDF page 109, Appendix F, drawing B/LIDLBROOKSRD2.1/TK02 rev P1: 'IN' panel, red reversing track from the car park crossing west into the loading bay
- PDF page 105, Appendix D, Proposed Site Plan 240129 PL-103 rev G: lorry track drawn over the crossing east of the store's north-east corner
What to ask for: Require a servicing layout that separates reversing lorries from customers and pedestrians, with delivery hours, a daily cap and a delivery management plan secured before permission, not left to a later condition.
- PDF page 19, printed page 15, 4.19:
No two-hour parking limit is offered
The pre-application advice asked for a two-hour limit on customer parking. The report only says that management of 'dwell time restrictions' is envisaged. It gives no time limit, no method of enforcement and no commitment. The report's own parking model assumes every car leaves within an hour.
Policies: SD22; SD19
Where in the document:
- PDF page 19, printed page 15, 4.13:
It is envisaged that appropriate car parking management systems will be in place to suitably manage dwell time restrictions and misuse of parking onsite
- PDF page 33, printed page 29, 7.15:
Remaining vehicles are typically onsite for less than an hour
What to ask for: Ask for a firm two-hour maximum stay and a car park management plan to be secured by condition or legal agreement.
- PDF page 19, printed page 15, 4.13:
Cycle, electric vehicle and blue badge parking fall short
The pre-application advice asked for 15 staff and 15 customer cycle spaces plus showers. The report offers 12 customer spaces and says staff may store bikes 'informally' in the warehouse; by its own calculation the County standard needs 9 short-stay and 5 long-stay spaces, and showers are not mentioned. The advice also asked for one charge point per five spaces (about 21). The report gives 2 active spaces in one paragraph and four in another, and argues that demand will be low. Six blue badge spaces are 5.7% of 106, below the 6% minimum the report quotes, and 106 spaces is described as 'consistent with local standards' although the stated optimum is 162.
Policies: SD22; SD19
Where in the document:
- PDF page 19, printed page 15, 4.15:
staff cycle storage will be informally available within the store warehouse area if required
- PDF page 35, printed page 31, 7.21:
this equates to a requirement for 9 short stay and 5 long stay cycle spaces
- PDF page 19, printed page 15, 4.11:
2 ‘Active’ EV charging spaces
- PDF page 32, printed page 28, 7.6:
providing four ‘Active’ EV charging spaces
- PDF page 32, printed page 28, 7.4:
a minimum of 6% of overall parking capacity should be allocated for blue badge users
- PDF page 36, printed page 32, 8.2:
which is considered consistent with local standards
What to ask for: Ask for the cycle parking, showers and charge points requested at pre-application stage, a seventh blue badge space, and one consistent set of figures.
- PDF page 19, printed page 15, 4.15:
Walking routes, the new crossing and Malling Street steps are undefined
The pre-application advice asked for a strategy showing how people would walk to the store from every direction. The report has none. The new Brooks Road crossing is only 'indicative', with its type and position left to a later highway agreement, and the report text does not describe the stepped and ramped access from Malling Street at all. The Davey's Lane link is labelled on the plan as allowing 'future access'. There is no road safety audit of the altered access or the new crossing.
Policies: SD20; SD21; SD19
Where in the document:
- PDF page 18, printed page 14, 4.7:
the exact location to be agreed with ESCC as part of the s278 process
- PDF page 105, Appendix D, Proposed Site Plan 240129 PL-103 rev G: note at left centre on the Brooks Road crossing; note at bottom right:
Stairs and ramp (>1:20) to provide access
- PDF page 105, Appendix D, PL-103 rev G: note at top centre on the Davey's Lane link:
Pedestrian link from north of the site to
- PDF page 107, Appendix E, drawing B/LIDLBROOKSRD2.1/04 (no revision shown): crossing drawn across both carriageways of Brooks Road south of the access roundabout
What to ask for: Require a pedestrian access strategy, a designed and safety-audited Brooks Road crossing, and gradients and widths for the Malling Street steps and ramp before decision.
- PDF page 18, printed page 14, 4.7:
Travel Plan
Mayer Brown Limited · August 2026 · Final 03 (report ref 260818 - LIDL Brooks Rd, Lewes - Travel Plan) · 30 pages
A plan for encouraging staff, and to a lesser extent customers, to travel to the store without driving alone. It would run for up to five years under a Travel Plan Co-ordinator appointed by Lidl. Its targets apply to staff only and its measures are mostly information: travel packs, posters, a cycle-to-work scheme and car-share promotion.
Key facts
- About 40 staff, full and part time, with 3 to 10 on site at any one time. (PDF page 9, printed page 6, 3.11)
- Targets cover staff only: driving alone to fall from an assumed 48% to 40% by year 5; walking, cycling and public transport together to rise from 40% to 45%; car sharing from 9% to 12%. The baseline is 2021 Census data for the local area, not a survey. (PDF page 21, printed page 18, Table 7.1)
- Monitoring is by staff travel survey within 6 months of opening and again in years 3 and 5, with a 40% minimum response rate and a report sent to the County Council within 2 months of each survey. (PDF page 22, printed page 19, 8.3 to 8.7)
- Cycle parking is 12 spaces (6 stands) under the canopy on the south side of the store, shared by staff and customers. Staff facilities are lockers, a changing area and toilets. No showers are listed. (PDF page 9, printed page 6, 3.8, 6.10 to 6.12)
- Electric vehicle charging is described as one 60kW rapid charge point able to charge 2 vehicles at once, with more added later if demand justifies it. (PDF page 18, printed page 15, 6.41 to 6.42)
Possible grounds for objection
Cycle parking and showers below the pre-application advice
The pre-application advice asked for 15 staff and 15 customer cycle spaces and showers. The plan provides 12 spaces in total, shared between staff and customers, and lists lockers, a changing area and toilets but no showers. The Transport Assessment describes the same 12 spaces as customer parking, with staff bikes stored informally in the warehouse, so the two documents do not agree on what staff will have.
Policies: SD22; SD19
Where in the document:
- PDF page 9, printed page 6, 3.8:
Parking for up to 12 cycles onsite, consisting of 6 ‘Sheffield’ stands for use by customers and staff
- PDF page 9, printed page 6, 3.8:
a cloakroom with lockers / areas for the storage of wet clothes, changing area and individual WCs
- PDF page 15, printed page 12, 6.12:
Additional storage space is available within the store non-sales / warehouse area for staff
What to ask for: Ask for 15 secure covered staff spaces, 15 customer spaces and staff showers, as requested at pre-application stage, shown on the plans.
- PDF page 9, printed page 6, 3.8:
Public footpath across the site is not mentioned
The plan describes the walking routes to the store and lists three pedestrian access points, but it does not mention Public Footpath Lewes 60, which crosses the site between Malling Street and Brooks Road. A plan meant to promote walking should show how an existing public path through the site will be kept or replaced. The site layout attached as Appendix A shows no public footpath.
Policies: SD20; SD19
Where in the document:
- PDF page 9, printed page 6, 3.7:
additional pedestrian only accesses located on Davey’s Lane to the north and Malling Street to the south
- PDF page 25, Appendix A, Proposed Site Plan 240129 PL-103 rev G: no public footpath shown
What to ask for: Ask for the Travel Plan to show Footpath Lewes 60 and explain how the route will be kept open for people walking to and through the site.
- PDF page 9, printed page 6, 3.7:
Public transport measures from the 2025 refusal are missing
One reason the 2025 application was refused was that there was no legal agreement securing a bus service contribution, a travel plan monitoring fee and real-time public transport displays in the store. This Travel Plan mentions none of them. Its public transport measures are limited to timetable information, journey-planning apps and ticket offers, and its action plan lists the funder simply as 'Lidl', with no sums.
Policies: SD19
Where in the document:
- PDF page 17, printed page 14, 6.26 to 6.30
- PDF page 29, Appendix C, Action Plan: 'PUBLIC TRANSPORT' rows:
Prepare up-to date public transport info - routes / timetables
What to ask for: Ask for the bus contribution, monitoring fee and in-store real-time displays to be written into the Travel Plan and secured by legal agreement.
Typical Tree Pit Details 1 of 2
Ares Landscape Architects · Drawn 24/08/2026; issued for planning 28/08/2026 · 886-ALA-ZZ-ZZ-D-L-0001 rev P01 · 1 page
A standard construction detail for tree pit 'Type 1b', for trees planted in worked but uncompacted ground. It shows a 2 m by 2 m by 0.9 m pit with topsoil, subsoil, drainage layer, staking or underground guying and an irrigation pipe. It is a typical detail, not specific to this site.
Key facts
- Type 1b pit: 2 x 2 x 0.9 m, giving 3.6 m3 of soil. It is for ground that has not been compacted and where existing soils meet British Standards. (PDF page 1, Heading and 'Parameters for selection on site', top left)
- The drawing does not say which of the 29 trees would have this pit type. (PDF page 1, Whole sheet)
No grounds are published for this document.
Typical Tree Pit Details 2 of 2
Ares Landscape Architects · Drawn 24/08/2026; issued for planning 28/08/2026 · 886-ALA-ZZ-ZZ-D-L-0002 rev P01 · 1 page
A standard construction detail for tree pit 'Type 1c', for trees planted in made, compacted or previously sealed ground. It shows a 3.5 m by 4 m by 0.9 m pit with root barriers next to hard surfaces. It is a typical detail, not specific to this site.
Key facts
- Type 1c pit: 3.5 x 4 x 0.9 m, giving 12.6 m3 of soil. It applies where the ground was previously sealed or has no soil, which describes most of this site. (PDF page 1, Heading and 'Parameters for selection on site', top left)
- Root barriers are specified next to any hard surface within 3 m of the trunk. (PDF page 1, Detail 1c (1) notes)
No grounds are published for this document.
Utilities Report (desktop search of utility company records)
Landmark Information Group (search carried out by Atkins) · 3 October 2024 · Report number 227823 · 117 pages
A desktop search of utility company records for the site, ordered in July 2024 and issued on 3 October 2024, before the first application. It collects standard record plans and guidance leaflets from Southern Water, UK Power Networks, SGN (gas), Openreach, Virgin Media and others. It is a records search only: nothing was traced on site, and it draws no conclusions. It does not say what would be diverted, disconnected or newly supplied for the proposed store.
Key facts
- 17 utility companies were contacted. Apparatus in or near the site was reported for electricity, gas, water and sewerage, and telecoms. (PDF page 1, Summary page)
- The Southern Water wastewater plan shows a public foul sewer running through the middle of the site (manholes 1402 to 1412) and a 225 mm combined sewer along the south of the site from manhole 0400, joining the sewer in Malling Street. (PDF page 52, Southern Water wastewater plan)
- The UK Power Networks plan shows high and low voltage cables in the Malling Street footway in front of nos. 46 to 50 and along Thomas Street, and a 33 kV route in Malling Street. The only substation shown is north of Davey's Lane, outside the site. (PDF page 63, UK Power Networks plan, sheet 4)
- Gas: low pressure mains are shown in the surrounding roads. Telecoms: Virgin Media ducts are shown crossing the site between the Brooks Road / Davey's Lane side and Malling Street. (PDF page 94, Virgin Media plan)
No grounds are published for this document.
Ventilation & Extraction Statement
DDA Consultant Engineers Ltd · 7 September 2026 · Issue 01 (project 26-5155) · 73 pages
A 20-page statement with 53 pages of manufacturers' data sheets describing the store's ventilation: the sales-area air handling unit, bakery, customer toilet and staff-area ventilation, and fans for the cold-room voids. Bakery air is recirculated inside the store, so there is no outside bakery extract. The statement does not cover the refrigeration plant or give noise data for the heat pumps, and says silencers will be chosen later to meet limits set in the noise report.
Key facts
- Five systems are described: sales-area air handling unit, bakery recirculation, customer toilet extract, back-of-house air handling unit, and cold-room void fans. (PDF page 5, 1.00)
- The sales-area unit has two supply and two extract fans. The data sheet gives fan outlet sound power of 81.1 dB(A) (supply) and 80.9 dB(A) (extract) before silencers. Intake and exhaust are through roof-mounted terminals. (PDF page 9, 3.00, Figures 3 and 4 (PDF pages 9-10))
- Heating and cooling come from two VRV heat pump systems 'located in the external plant area'. No sound data is given for them. (PDF page 8, 3.00)
- Bakery: two double-stacked convection ovens. The 450 litres per second extract is discharged back into the store, not to the outside. (PDF page 12, 4.00)
- The customer toilet extract (72 litres per second) discharges through a side-wall louvre; the fan is put at about 17 dBA at 3 m. (PDF page 14, 5.00)
- The cold-room void fans run 24 hours a day but are wholly inside the building. (PDF page 19, 7.00)
- Final fan details are to be confirmed by the fit-out contractor at a later design stage (Stage 4), and outside silencers 'will be selected' to meet limits in the noise report. (PDF page 11, 4.00; also 3.00, 5.00, 6.00)
Possible grounds for objection
Main noise-making plant is not covered
The noise report expects the fixed plant to include a refrigeration pack, condenser units and heat pumps, and the Energy Statement refers to dry coolers. This statement covers ventilation only. It mentions two heat pump systems in the external plant area but gives no sound data, quantities or positions for them, and says nothing about refrigeration plant or its operating hours. So no submitted document gives the noise output of the plant most likely to be heard at night, and the proposed plant-noise condition cannot be tested.
Policies: SD5; SD7; SD54
Where in the document:
- PDF page 8, 3.00:
Variable Refrigerant Volume (VRV) 2-pipe heat pump systems, located in the external plant area
- PDF page 5, 1.00 (list of systems covered)
What to ask for: Ask for a full external plant schedule, including refrigeration and heat pump units, with sound power levels, numbers, positions and night-time operating modes.
- PDF page 8, 3.00:
Outside noise control is left to later design
For each system that discharges outside, the statement says a silencer will be selected so that noise does not exceed the limits in the acoustic report. The noise report sets no limits for individual plant items; it only proposes that total plant noise should not exceed background at the nearest home. Each document relies on the other, and neither shows that the limit can be met with the fans listed, whose outlet sound power is about 81 dB(A) before silencers. Final fan details are left to the fit-out contractor.
Policies: SD5; SD54
Where in the document:
- PDF page 9, 3.00:
atmospheric silencer will be selected to ensure the noise level does not exceed the maximum limits stated in the acoustic survey and recommendations report
- PDF page 11, 4.00:
Contractor will be responsible for confirming the final fan details once the Stage 4 design is completed
- PDF page 9, Figure 3 (supply fan outlet 81,1 dB(A))
What to ask for: Ask for silencer selections and a calculation showing the resulting noise level at the nearest homes, by day and at night.
- PDF page 9, 3.00: