Planning inspector overturns refusal of a rural housing development near Bexhill

In a decision notice published on Friday (March 8), a planning inspector has approved proposals to build 13 houses on land at Potmans Lane in Lunsford Cross.

The scheme had been refused planning permission by Wealden District Council in February last year, due to concerns about its ‘unsustainable’ rural location making future residents reliant on using cars.

In a decision notice at the time, a council planning officer said: “The site’s position at this point in Lunsford Cross makes it detached from any recognised service centres … with services relied upon being those within Ninfield and Sidley and the urban centre of Bexhill.

“This, combined with the limited bus service and lack of convenient pedestrian or cycle links means that housing would create a need to travel to access services in urban areas, and make occupiers of these units heavily reliant on the private car.

“The significant and demonstrable adverse impacts of this, coupled with other adverse impacts of location … are not outweighed by the benefits of provision of thirteen units towards housing need, and some contribution towards local affordable housing need.”

The planning inspector reached a different conclusion, however.

While the inspector acknowledged residents would likely be reliant on using private cars (and therefore in conflict with local planning policies), they reached the view that this downside was outweighed by the need for housing in the district.

In their decision notice, the inspector said: “Taking the Framework as a whole I consider that the harm resulting from the proposal’s location does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the provision of 13 units, including the provision of affordable housing, at a time when the council cannot demonstrate a sufficient supply. The presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore applies.”

Planning officers had also raised concerns about the site’s proximity to a wastewater treatment works, saying there was not enough evidence to show how ‘odour nuisance’ would be avoided. This reason for refusal was dropped as further evidence came to light during the appeal process.

Notably, the council had also approved development on the site in 2016. The appeal scheme was described as a ‘resubmission’ of these previously approved proposals.

This previous approval saw the developer seek costs from the council, arguing the authority had engaged in ‘unreasonable behaviour’ by reaching a different conclusion on the appeal scheme.

The inspector disagreed with this, however, saying the council had considered the previous decision appropriately before reaching its decision. As a result, no costs were awarded.

For further information on the development proposals, see application reference WD/2022/0649/MAJ on the Wealden District Council website.