Appeal decision made on 700 homes on outskirts of Eastbourne

Outline permission for the scheme at Mornings Mill Farm in Lower Willingdon was refused by Wealden District Council in December 2021.

But the applicant appealed against the decision and after a public inquiry was held, a planning inspector has sided with the developer.

Inspector Michael Boniface also awarded costs against Wealden, arguing the council’s conduct in this case ‘is the epitome of unreasonable behaviour’.

Lewes MP Maria Caulfield, who has spoken out against the development alongside Eastbourne MP Caroline Ansell, said: “It is extremely disappointing to see this decision by the planning inspector, local planning authorities should not be having their democratic decision overturned and I have raised this issue in the House of Commons and have urged the government to hold a debate on the issue to ensure that we are fulfilling our manifesto promise to limit building on greenfields.

“I will be requesting an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State, as there has been a spate of appeals in the local area which are overturning planning committees decisions and this is completely unacceptable.”

As well as the homes, the development will include employment floorspace, medical centre, school, community centre, retail, playing fields, children’s play space, allotments and open space.

Defending the committee’s decision was always going to be a tall order given the government’s direction on housebuilding, the status of Wealden’s local plan review and housing delivery rates.

The deck was further stacked against opponents of the development when the council decided to withdraw its reasons for objecting on the eve of the public inquiry.

In his report, Mr Boniface felt the appeal site was a suitable location for the proposed development in principle.

He described it as ‘unquestionably a highly sustainable location’ and acceptable in highways terms. He thought it was ‘relatively well contained’ with a narrow frontage on to Eastbourne Road and believed the landscape and visual impacts of the development ‘would be minimised as far as possible through good design’ so that harm arising would be limited.

He concluded: “The identified harms are relatively few, including a conflict with two out of date policies from the LP and localised landscape and visual impacts.”