13 hours Ago
The future of a major housing development for more than 100 homes remains uncertain. On Thursday Wealden District Council’s planning committee north discussed outline proposals to build up to 145 homes in Uckfield on land to the north of Eastbourne Road, known locally as the Cysleys Farm scheme. After a wide-ranging debate, the scheme, from developer Gladman, was refused on a majority vote.
However, this decision appears to have been superseded by calls to refer the decision to the council’s other planning committee, planning committee south, for review. The call to review the application was initially raised by Labour’s Daniel Manvell, who said he had concerns about a "lack of clarity" on the committee’s decision. “I am really concerned that we have refused an application without clear grounds for why we have done so, on a fairly narrow vote," he said.
The application itself is a resubmission of proposals considered and refused by planning committee north in November. This previous decision is currently in the early stages of an appeal process, which officers had warned is likely to find in favour of the developer. Councillors had turned down the previous proposals in light of objections raised by East Sussex Highways around “excessive walking distances” for future residents and “unsuitable cycling routes towards the town centre.
” East Sussex Highways did not replicate its previous objections in response to the resubmitted application. In fact, Wealden planning officers told the committee, the highways authority had even made it clear it does "not wish to oppose the granting of planning permission ..
. in this instance". A range of other concerns had been raised by councillors at the time of the previous hearing, but, on officer advice, did not form part of the reasons for refusal.
Wealden planning officers warned this background meant a repeated refusal on highways grounds or a refusal on new non-highways grounds could very likely be seen as "unreasonable" by an appeal inspector. This could result in the council being forced to pay considerable costs back to the developer, they warned. Officers had advised for approval of the resubmitted scheme, saying there were not sufficient grounds for refusal.
Officers had also pointed out how a decision to approve could prevent the appeal from progressing further and therefore prevent the council from facing additional costs. Some committee members supported this view, including Cllr Manvell, who put forward a motion to approve the scheme. But the majority of the committee were opposed to planning permission being granted.
These objections coalesced into a motion tabled by Green Party councillor Christina Coleman, who argued the scheme should be refused primarily on the grounds it would result in harm to “irreplaceable habitats”. Cllr Coleman highlighted the site’s “wetland” features, an ecosystem she argued would be harmed by both the construction process and ongoing residential use of the land. But officers said this would not be a “robust” reason for refusal, as the matter could be resolved through conditions included within their recommendation.
Officers also disputed Cllr Coleman’s interpretation of what counted as an “irreplaceable habitat”. Officers said only certain elements of the site (specifically an area of ancient woodland and a “veteran tree”) would qualify for this protected status, while Cllr Coleman maintained these elements were among examples rather part of an exhaustive list. Cllr Coleman maintained the scheme should be refused on the grounds it would cause harm to “irreplaceable habitats” but a number of other councillors had suggested additional grounds for refusal.
They included independent councillor Kevin Benton who suggested the site’s position outside Uckfield’s development boundary and other local planning policies could potentially be added to the refusal. The majority of the committee voted in support of the motion, resulting in the refusal of planning permission. Cllr Manvell then raised his concerns, resulting in the majority of the committee voting to refer the application to planning committee south.
According to the council’s constitution, any hearing of a “referred in” application will be conducted as a review of the original decision, rather than a fresh hearing. In this case, planning committee south would be expected to determine whether the original decision was or was not appropriate. Once it comes to a conclusion on this matter, the committee may: affirm the original decision; modify it to correct any perceived defect; or overturn and replace it with a new decision.
.
