One Horam housing development approved but a second application rejected

On Thursday (December 1), Wealden District Council’s Planning Committee South considered two applications, refusing one while approving the other.

The two schemes sought permission to build 34 new homes in Little London Road and — in a separate outline application — up to 24 homes in Chiddingly Road, at the southern edge of the village.

The first was refused, but the second was approved.

Both sites had seen objections raised by Horam Parish Council, which argued the village did not have the infrastructure required to take additional development, particularly when the proposals were combined with already approved schemes.

Some of these concerns were voiced by ward councillor Susan Stedman (Con), who argued the village was not a sustainable location for such development. Speaking on the Chiddingly Road scheme, she said: “There are two applications in Horam on this agenda today and for some extent my comments will apply to both.

“The committee must now be well aware that the nearest school, Maynards Green, is well out of the village, oversubscribed and car dependent for those living in Horam. The bus service as we heard earlier stops in the early evening and doesn’t start early enough for those wishing to commute further than Heathfield.

“Although we are told it is not a planning matter, both Heathfield surgeries are now closed to new patients and the satellite surgery of the Buxted and East Hoathly practice has also stopped taking new patients.

“I’ll leave it to others to comment on Southern Water, but I take with a pinch of salt their statement that the Vine’s Cross waterworks with these new developments as it would appear, allegedly, possible problem waste is disgorged before it reaches Vine’s Cross.”

Cllr Stedman went on to say the village was taking a “disproportionate” amount of new housing. Similar objections were raised by the ward’s other councillor Bob Bowdler.

Concerns about infrastructure — particularly sewerage and highways — were shared by a number of committee members, however, officers cautioned against refusing the schemes on these grounds, due to the lack of objections from statutory bodies.

A refusal without these objections would open the council to costs for unreasonable behaviour at appeal, officers said, particularly given the district’s failure to meet government housing targets.

Given the situation, the committee reluctantly voted to approve the scheme.

Similar objections had been raised to the Little London Road development as well, but the committee ultimately went against officer recommendations and refused the scheme.

The decision was taken as a large part of the site falls within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and committee members felt it would have an unacceptable impact on it.

Officers had advised against this approach as they did not consider the site would have a ‘significant adverse impact’.

For further information see application reference WD/2021/2458/MAJ for the Little London Road scheme and WD/2020/0950/MAO for the Chiddingly Road site.