Continued fight against 700 homes on outskirts of Eastbourne is backed

Wealden councillors will look to defend a decision to refuse planning permission to an unpopular housing development on the outskirts of Eastbourne, a committee has decided.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

After almost two hours of debate on Thursday (June 16), Wealden District Council’s Planning Committee South’s agreed that elected members would step up to defend their reasons for refusing a 700-home development at Mornings Mill Farm in Lower Willingdon at an upcoming public inquiry.

However, the decision came with a significant caveat; they would only do so should the council be able to secure a legal representative to marshal their case.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

If such a legal representative could not be found within time — effectively within the next two weeks — the council will instead notify the Planning Inspectorate that it will not defend the reasons for refusal. In effect, this would mean the appeal would proceed uncontested by the council.

The Mornings Mill Farm application site boundaryThe Mornings Mill Farm application site boundary
The Mornings Mill Farm application site boundary

Councillors had been offered this course of action after the council had proved unable to find a professional planning consultant willing to defend the committee’s original reasons for refusal.

Those reasons were: highways safety; concerns around flood risk and that the development would be built beyond the development boundary set out in planning policy.

The council’s own officers could not defend these reasons either, as their previous recommendation to approve the scheme meant they would be professionally conflicted. To argue the opposite view would leave them open to professional sanctions, the committee heard.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

While the committee ultimately decided for a group of (as-yet unnamed) councillors to defend their decision, some of its members argued the council should withdraw in an effort to mitigate any costs the applicant may be awarded.

Raymond Cade, also the council’s cabinet member for housing, said: “I think this is one of the occasions when it is necessary to stand back and have a reality check.

“We have reached the stage where the expertise required and the legal technical knowledge to argue any case in relation to the major aspects of this application is far beyond choosing some paragraphs of the NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework], saved policies or parts of the core strategy.”

He argued it would be ‘foolhardy to continue opposition’ and believed costs could reach six-figures should the council continue to defend the committee’s decision. Others argued that the council’s withdrawal would not prevent the issues being aired as part of the upcoming planning inquiry. It would also not prevent individual councillors from giving evidence for the reasons behind their decisions.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Ultimately, however, the majority of the committee felt otherwise.

David White (Ind), who eventually put forward the proposal to pursue the defence, argued the council’s involvement would ensure residents had the best chance of having their voices heard during the appeal proceedings.

He said: “Members are elected to represent the views of the local people who elect us. The classic definition of democracy is government of the people, by the people for the people. In this application we had over a thousand people writing individual objections.

“We had three local councils opposing the application. We had the South Downs National Park opposing the application. We had the CPRE opposing the application. You cannot ignore, on the basis of democracy those levels of opposition.”

Related topics: