Councillors turn down 75 homes scheme for East Sussex

On Thursday (April 9), Wealden District Council’s majors planning committee turned down an outline application, which had been seeking permission to build up to 75 homes on a site to the north of Buxted Road, Coopers Green.

The application, jointly submitted by Robin Nathan and promoter Catesby Strategic Land Limited, had been recommended for approval by council planning officers.

This recommendation was partly based on a view that the council’s housing land supply shortage meant the scheme benefitted from a “the presumption in favour of sustainable development” set out in national planning rules.

These rules, also known as the ‘tilted balance’, require councils to approve development unless it carries adverse impacts which “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh its benefits.

Officers had concluded there were no such adverse impacts.

Local objectors argued the proposals would put significant pressure on local infrastructure; result in an unacceptable coalescence of separate settlements; and harm a number of ‘designated heritage assets’, including several listed buildings.

Similar concerns were aired in a statement read out on behalf of Buxted ward's Green councillor Graham Shaw. He said the site had recently been assessed as a potential development site as part of a process linked to Wealden’s local plan.

He said: “The conclusion was that the site was not suitable for housing and has since not appeared in iterations of the local plan.

“Within the assessment it commented on the proximity of Grade II listed buildings and a Grade II listed park and concluded ‘it is considered that residential development in this location would have a detrimental impact on the rural setting and character of Five Ash Down/Coopers Green and Buxted Park'.

“We know that the local plan has not been adopted and so carries little weight, however, one of the supporting points for a decision at the last committee meeting was that the site had been allocated within the draft local plan.”

Cllr Shaw referred to a planning inspector decision to refuse development at the nearby Walled Garden site, due to concerns around its impact on some of the same designated heritage assets.

He argued these factors offered solid grounds for refusing planning permission, even with the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.

Officers cautioned the committee against this approach.

Stacy Robins, the council’s head of planning and environmental services, said: “It is right that … the site was put to one side because of heritage sensitivity.

“In part, what was read out [from the assessment] was accurate, but it also went on to say that there was a live planning application submitted and that is the application that is before you today.

“So what [the assessment] set out is ‘look, there are complications in relation to heritage sensitivity, further work was required and that would be done via the planning application that would air these issues'.”

He said these heritage issues had been aired through the application, with the impact of the proposals on each of these assets ultimately judged to be “less than substantial harm” and so not enough to outweigh the benefits of the development.

Proposing refusal, Green councillor Greg Collins said the decision should take into account the cumulative impact of the development on these heritage assets.

He said: “This site is ringed by listed buildings — concentric rings of listed buildings, including … the Grade I listed St Margaret's Church, the church yard from which you can see this site. So that church has stood here for a 1,000 years looking out across a valley to a field where this site is going to be.

“Now my wife kindly reminded me over Easter that my logic of just eating one chocolate, it won’t do any harm, doesn’t work if I then work my way through the concentric rings of chocolates in the box.

“So if I’ve got less than substantial harm to a specific individual listed building and I’ve got less than substantial harm to the one next door and the one next door to that, surely I’ve reached the point where that less than substantial harm — in aggregate — is substantial.”

Mr Robins said this position would go beyond the guidance offered by the council’s heritage officer. He also warned it was likely for a refusal on these grounds to result in an appeal being lodged.

The committee opted to refuse planning permission on grounds related to its impact on the designated heritage assets.

For more information on the  scheme see application reference WD/2024/2481/MAO.