Wivelsfield Green development unanimously refused

An application for 55 dwellings south of South Road was turned down back in 2016.

Developers have come back with revised plans, for fewer homes, alongside a landscaped area to the east of the site, extra woodland and a new pedestrian walkway along South Road.

The council’s planning applications committee unanimously refused the new plans on Wednesday (April 27).

Ian Dawson, chair of Wivelsfield Parish Council, described how the plans failed the neighbourhood plan in two key aspects: the scheme was above the up to 30 units maximum size of any development and the village lacks the necessary infrastructure for such significant housebuilding.

He pointed out the primary school was at capacity, the bus service is extremely limited, there is a lack of health services and only one pub and one shop in Wivelsfield Green.

Mr Dawson also described the development as car reliant and believed it would be detrimental to the local landscape.

Other objectors highlighted the ecological damage of building on the site, while a recently completed development nearby was suffering from sewage issues.

Parking and traffic was also described as ‘already a problem’. The site was also treasured as the only green space left in this part of the village.

But Rory Kemp, project manager for Wates Developments, believed the scheme was ‘technically robust and legally compliant’ and highlighted the 40 per cent affordable housing, children’s play area, wildlife park and new trees.

A statement read out on behalf of Wivelsfield’s district councillor Nancy Bikson described how the application was ‘wrong on so many levels’ and development ‘should not even be considered’ on this valuable green space.

Milly Manley (Green, Lewes Castle) said it was a ‘great shame’ they could not consider the impact of sewage in planning as it was ‘clearly becoming an issue’.

She added: “I believe as a green space it should be left peaceful and undisturbed.”

Committee chair Sharon Davy (Con, Chailey Barcombe and Hamsey) believed the only thing that had changed since the previous refusal was the council could no longer demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

She added: “It’s a natural boundary and the question is I believe throughout our district is whether we accept urbanising the northern rural villages that are not protected by the South Downs National Park.”