Hailsham development for 200 homes refused due to capacity of road network

Permission has already been granted for a number of sites south of the town, including for the first two phases of 400 homes at Ersham Park and 100 homes at Cuckoo Fields.

However a third phase for 200 homes west of Station Road proved too much for Wealden District Council’s planning committee south as it refused outline permission on Thursday (February 24).

Members of the public and a number of councillors raised concerns about the existing traffic problems with Station Road and the belief these would be exacerbated by hundreds of new homes.

It was described as ‘very narrow’, one of the main routes into the town centre, with cars and lorries accessing the nearby rubbish tip and industrial estate.

Meanwhile parking along the length of Station Road meant there was not enough space for two vehicles to pass at a number of points.

Officers highlighted how a number of highways improvements had been secured when the first two phases were granted outline permission, which the third phase would benefit from.

Neil Cleaver (LDem, Hailsham North West) described how residents were ‘fed up with all of the new development being proposed in the town’.

He also highlighted even more homes planned off Marshfoot Lane and Mill Road.

Later in the debate, he suggested all the three phases were a ‘no go’ without a southern ring road.

Bob Bowdler (Con, Horam & Punnetts Town) described how Station Road was ‘chaos now’, adding: “I can’t support this ridiculous application. There’s nothing wrong with the site, it’s the road that’s the problem.”

He was also ‘disappointed’ East Sussex County Council’s highways team had not objected.

For Wealden’s council officers this was the crux of the matter if the application went to appeal.

Stacey Robins, head of planning and environmental services, described how the three phases would secure a package of highways improvements such as a roundabout at the junction with Old Swan Lane.

But David White (Ind Group, Hellingly) proposed refusal, saying: “I would rather this was brought forward in a few years’ time when we have seen some of the other build outs have taken place.”

Mr Robins pointed out this was a site on the edge of the district’s major towns with a package of measures to ensure the new homes are connected to Hailsham and existing facilities.

He said: “It’s as good as it gets in terms of Wealden.”

He described how the other sites had been taken into account and ‘we’re not operating in a vacuum’.

He asked members what they would say at appeal in front of a planning inspector and warned them the council could face an ‘unreasonable refusal of planning permission’.

This argument resonated with Johanna Howell (Con, Frant & Wadhurst), who said: “We’re between a rock and a hard place. We have nowhere to go with this and I would not want to look down the barrel of an inspector’s gun because he would probably shoot me.”

However the majority of members disagreed and the application was refused by nine votes to two.