Uckfield scheme for 33 homes refused as overdevelopment

On Thursday (December 9), Wealden District Council’s planning committee north rejected an outline application seeking permission to build up to 33 houses to the east of Five Ash Down Road.

While recommended for approval, the committee had concerns about the number of homes sought saying the site could potentially accommodate some housing but not the 33 proposed.

Committee chairman Gary Johnson (Con, Uckfield Ridgewood & Little Horsted) said: “I know this site quite well living in Uckfield. Personally I think 33 is far too many for this site, if it were to be built on.”

The site, which lies to the rear of a row of homes known as The Walled Gardens, has a lengthy planning history, with several previous schemes having been refused permission in the past.

These previous reasons for refusal were reinforced by objectors, who also argued the scheme would be an overdevelopment of the site and have an impact on a nearby listed building.

Among those to speak against the scheme was  Peter Roundell (Con, Maresfield), who was speaking in place of ward councillor and fellow Conservative Toby Illingworth due to a ‘prejudicial interest’.

Cllr Roundell argued that accepting the scheme would be inconsistent with previous decisions for the area. He drew particular attention to the refusal of an outline scheme to build up to 35 homes on the other side of Five Ash Down Road, which he described as the ‘Coopers Row’ scheme. 

By approving this scheme, Cllr Roundell argued, the council would undermine its ability to defend its decision to refuse the Coopers Row proposals and also open the door to further development in the area.

Officers, who had recommended that the scheme be approved, cautioned against using these concerns around future development as grounds for refusal, however. 

Head of planning Stacey Robins said: “It is right that there are very many applications swirling around, about to be submitted or potentially coming up at a future agenda and members may be worried by that. 

“Each month we sit here there is a degree of surprise about that. We are not [surprised] as officers, because we know the situation we are in, in regards to the number of dwellings that we must accommodate and allocate and make provision for having regard to the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework).

“I know members don’t like that and certainly residents don’t like that and our parish and town councils don’t like that.  I get it is a bit like having a bruised arm and being punched on it every month, but that is the situation we are in I’m afraid. I’m sorry to use that language, but it rather, I think, puts it into sharp focus. 

“As I say in the report, sites like this with a significant planning history and with a history of refusals and a history of an appeal decision, we’ve got to look at again if we are to meet our housing need as required by the NPPF.”

Officers had recommended that the scheme should be approved as it was considered to be in a ‘sustainable location’, while it’s position outside of the development boundary was counteracted by the council’s lack of a five year supply of housing land. 

More details of the scheme (including its impact on the nearby listed building) would also come forward as part of the reserved matters application, officers said.

These arguments clearly swayed several committee members, several of whom backed a motion to approve the scheme on the grounds it was a sustainable location able to accommodate the 33 houses proposed. 

The majority disagreed, however, concluding that the number of houses proposed would be an overdevelopment of the site. 

As a result, the application was refused on a majority vote.

For further information on the proposals see application reference WD/2021/1419/MAO on the Wealden District Council website.