A planning inspector has dismissed an appeal to build between five and nine homes on land to the west of Newick Lane, Heathfield.
The applicant, listed as Paul Ferguson, had put forward the proposals as a Planning in Principle (PiP) application. Such applications are limited in scope, as they are intended to establish whether a site would be suitable for development without the need for detailed designs.
Planning officers judged the site’s location to be unsuitable for a variety of reasons, including its potential to harm North Down — a Grade II listed building.
In a decision published in November, a Wealden District Council planning spokesman said: “The weight to be afforded to the delivery between five and nine dwellings in terms of housing supply and support to the existing services and facilities in the town and short-term economic benefit of the construction phase does not outweigh the harm to the area and the asset of particular importance.
“The harmful effects of the proposals in this location conflict with development plan policies other than those for the supply of housing and as such there are no material considerations that outweigh the conflict with the development plan.”
Officers had also set out concerns around the site’s “connectivity” and its potential impact on the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL).
The applicant disagreed with this assessment.
Through appeal documents, the applicant argued the council — in its assessment of the scheme’s impact on North Down — had both engaged in “selective reasoning” and considered matters which went beyond the scope of a PiP application.
In appeal documents, a spokesman for the applicant said: “The council does not consider the lack of intervisibility, nor does it explain how any part of the building’s significance relies on the appeal of the land.
“Additionally, at the PiP stage, the assessment is restricted to whether the site’s location is inherently incompatible with the heritage asset. Detailed views, layout-specific impacts, and the balance of harm can only be assessed at the technical details stage.
“The council evaluation disregards these principles and applies a detailed harm assessment at a stage where such assessments are not legally permitted.”
The applicant pointed to previous development in the area, specifically a Rother View, a group of around ten houses to the south of the site. They argued this development had created “a complete physical and visual separation” between the proposed development site and North Down.
The planning inspector disagreed with this view.
In their decision notice, the inspector said: “While there is limited intervisibility between the heritage asset and appeal site, and the access to Rother View has introduced built form, the appeal site nevertheless still forms a positive part of the wider rural and agricultural landscape that the appeal property is historically and was functionally connected to.
“This is particularly the case when travelling along Newick Lane where the appeal site still
positively provides attractive rural countryside surroundings in which the asset is experienced.
“The introduction of a residential development of five to nine dwellings at the appeal site would result in the loss of a field to the rear of the asset which once formed part of its historical grounds.
“It would sever North Down from the wider rural agricultural landscape, resulting in the asset being contained to the rear by development rather than experienced in the context of rural and agricultural surroundings.
“Therefore, the principle of a development of five to nine dwellings would detract from and would fail to preserve the setting of North Down, and therefore harm the significance of the designated heritage asset.”
The inspector went on to say this harm would be “less than substantial”, so not an overwhelming reason to refuse the application. However, the inspector also judged the overall benefits of the scheme to be “modest”, so not enough to outweigh the harm.
The inspector also shared the council’s concerns around the scheme’s potential impact on the HWNL.
The inspector opted to dismiss the appeal.
For further information on the proposals see application reference WD/2025/2308/PIP on the Wealden District Council website.
Source link
[Featured]
[Just In]
