Greenfield development near East Sussex town rejected at appeal by planning inspector

Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now
Proposals for a rural housing development near Hailsham have been rejected at appeal.

In a decision notice published last Monday (February 13), a planning inspector has dismissed proposals to build five houses on a greenfield site in Squab Lane, Magham Down.

The scheme, refused by Wealden District Council planning officers in June last year, followed on from an unsuccessful previous bid to build six houses on the same site.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

As with the previous scheme, council planning officers had concerns about its location and sustainability, which led to the application being refused under delegated powers.

Proposed site layoutProposed site layout
Proposed site layout

The appellant disputed this decision, pointing to the district’s significant shortfall in housing, something which results in a ‘tilted balance’ in favour of development under national planning rules.

However, the inspector disagreed with this view, concluding that the development would both “erode” the countryside character of the area and see future residents highly reliant on private cars.

In their decision notice, the inspector wrote: “Having carefully considered all matters I conclude that the scheme would not represent sustainable development in accord with the purpose of the planning system and the central thrust of the [National Planning Policy] Framework.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“The adverse impacts on the environmental front would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the economic, social and other benefits including the contribution which would be made to housing land supply.”

They added: “[While] living conditions for future residents would be acceptable, the appeal proposal would represent unacceptable development in terms of its principle and sustainability and it would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the locality. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”