Controversial East Sussex care home plans refused at appeal

In a decision published last week, a planning inspector has dismissed an appeal connected with proposals to build a 60-bed care home in Southdown Road, on land to the south of the retreat and conference venue known as Florence House.

The development had been refused planning permission by Lewes District Council in January last year, with the council raising concerns about a number of issues, including its impact on the appearance of the South Downs National Park.

In a report written at the time, a council planning spokesman said: “It is acknowledged that the proposed development would deliver social benefits in terms of the provision of new housing for elderly people, with the potential to benefit a wider spectrum of the community by freeing up housing stock.

“It is also acknowledged that there would be an economic benefit in terms of the delivery of jobs within the development and supply chains and potential increased usage of surrounding shops and businesses.

“However, it is considered that the benefits of the scheme are significantly outweighed by the harm it would cause to the setting of the protected landscape of the South Downs National Park and its amenity value, the lack of a clear strategy to mitigate harm to biodiversity and uncertainty over the ability for surface water to be managed.

“There would also be a harmful social impact in terms of the unsympathetic relationship towards dwellings on the opposite side of Southdown Road.”

Local opposition to the scheme had also been significant, with Lewes District Council receiving more than 110 letters of objection to the initial proposals.

But the council’s concerns were disputed by Frontier Estates, the developer behind the scheme. In documents submitted as part of the appeal, representatives of the developer argued the proposal was of an “appropriate scale and design for its location” and would be “sympathetic” to the area.

The developer also argued the council’s housing supply shortfall meant the scheme should have benefited from the ‘presumption in favour of development’ set out in national planning rules.

However, these arguments failed to sway the inspector, who ultimately concluded the development should not go ahead.

In their decision notice, the planning inspector said: “Having considered all matters raised in support of the proposal, I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the substantial and demonstrable harm that I have identified above.

“Accordingly, the proposal is in conflict with the adopted development plan when considered as a whole and given the above would also conflict with policies contained within the [National Planning Policy] Framework, and as there are no other material considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance with those policies when considered as a whole, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”

The inspector’s decision has been welcomed by objectors, including ward councillor Christine Brett (Lib Dem). In a statement, Cllr Brett 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 unnecessary accommodation which is not needed here. I am delighted that at last, the planning inspector has agreed with us.”