Plans for major Uckfield housing development refused at appeal
The scheme included building 290 houses on land to the south of a stretch of the B2102 known as Bird-in-Eye Hill
Proposals for a major housing development on the outskirts of Uckfield have been turned down at appeal.
In a decision notice published last Thursday (October 12), a planning inspector has dismissed an appeal connected with outline plans for a 290-home housing development on land to the south of a stretch of the B2102 known as Bird-in-Eye Hill.
The appeal, from developer Croudace Homes, had been lodged on the grounds of non-determination, essentially because Wealden District Council had not issued a decision on the planning application within the legal timeframe.
During the appeal process (which included a public hearing last month) the council stated it would have refused planning permission, arguing the scheme was not ‘sustainable’.
This was due to a number of factors, including its impact on highway safety and harm to an area of ancient woodland bordering the site. Further areas of concern had been raised by other parties, including the development’s impact on local heritage assets and local flood risks.
These concerns were broadly shared by the planning inspector, who ultimately chose to dismiss the appeal.
In their decision notice, the inspector said: “The harms I have identified in respect of ancient woodland, highway safety, flood risk, and heritage are individually significant and cumulatively carry substantial weight. There is also very limited harm by way of locational policy conflict.
“Whilst I have found no harm in terms of the accessibility of the development, and no harm in relation to drainage, overall, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole.
“Furthermore, the harms identified in respect of ancient woodland, flood risk and heritage relate to the application of policies in the National Planning Policy Framework which protect areas or assets of particular importance and provide clear reasons for refusing the development proposed.
“The matters which weigh in favour of the proposal, whilst substantial, do not outweigh the totality of the harm that I have found.
“The appeal is therefore dismissed and planning permission refused.”