The government’s planning inspectorate dismissed an appeal by developer Frontier Estates after the application was rejected by Lewes District Council.
The development, which would have been in Southdown Road, Seaford, would “substantially harm the character and appearance of the area” due to its “large, dominant and bulky” size.
It was going to be on the edge of Seaford Head golf course which is on the edge of the South Downs National Park.
Christine Brett, Liberal Democrat councillor for Seaford South, said: “This has been a long-fought campaign to prevent this out-of-scale, unsympathetic development proposal. We are greatly relieved that the inspector agreed with us that the proposal would be large, bulky and an incongruous addition to the landscape.
“I am hugely grateful to all the residents who helped bring about this success by putting in their objections, signing a petition and supporting me in opposing this planning application.
“Seaford has been targeted by developers seeking to provide this kind of un-necessary accommodation which is not needed here. I am delighted that at last, the planning inspector has agreed with us.”
The inspectorate also said they were not convinced that the care home would be “attractive or affordable” to elderly people in Seaford to enable them to free up other housing in the nearby area.
Seaford Town Council said the Southdown Road development would have had an “unacceptable” impact on the view of the adjoining national park and designated heritage coast, as well as place extra pressure on local health infrastructure.
The appeal was dismissed on January 11 following a site visit on December 13 by the planning inspector. Lewes District Council initially refused the planning application on January 26 last year.
A district council spokeswoman said the council was pleased that its decision to refuse planning permission was upheld by the planning inspector.
It comes after plans for a retirement complex were given the go-ahead in nearby Crouch Lane on August 29 last year.
While the inspector agreed that the scheme was of a ‘poor design’ in terms of pedestrian accessibility, they ultimately found that this harm would be outweighed by its other benefits.
Source link
[Featured]
[Just In]
