Councillors have reversed their decision to refuse a controversial housing development after it was warned turning it down could land taxpayers with a bill for the developers’ legal costs.
The scheme for 145 homes north of Eastbourne Road in Uckfield can now go ahead after last night’s meeting of Wealden District Council’s Planning Committee North.
Developer Gladman’s first outline plans for the development, known locally as the Cysleys Farm scheme, was originally turned down in November, solely in connection with objections raised by East Sussex Highways around “excessive walking distances” for future residents and “unsuitable cycling routes towards the town centre”.
But when Gladman submitted revised plans, East Sussex Highways did not object and even made it clear it did “not wish to oppose the granting of planning permission … in this instance”.
Officers, who had recommended approval, warned these circumstances meant any refusal on highways grounds or on new non-highways grounds could be seen as “unreasonable behaviour” at appeal, which could see the council liable to pay costs.
Moving a motion to approve the scheme, Cllr Kelvin Williams (Lib Dem) said: “I think we are between a rock and a hard place. I am choosing the hard place, in the sense that I think the best solution would be for the committee to grant this.
“So I am prepared to put a proposal forward to approve this application with all of the caveats that we’ve spoken about. I think it is important that we are not giving any false hope to residents, because we have got a live application at appeal where it will be dealt with by an inspector.
“No doubt the inspector can be influenced as what conditions are acceptable or not acceptable, whereas us actually approving this here and now we can have more certainty about what goes forward.”
In coming to this decision, committee members asked officers to strengthen conditions around wastewater drainage, look for additional mitigation measures around the scheme’s highways impact and to limit negotiations around a section 106 legal agreement to no more than eight weeks.
Ward councillor Ann Newton expressed frustration about this situation, arguing more should have been done to mitigate the development’s impact on traffic in the surrounding area.
She said: “To me, one of the problems with this application, as there are with many others, is the lack of dialogue with the developer and the relevant town and parishes.
“The huge issue with this application is the traffic and it upsets me greatly that Framfield in particular was ignored. Palehouse Common will become a rat run, because the traffic will go out towards the A22 — that is sensible — or go into Uckfield the other way, but if there is any blockage it will shoot down Palehouse Common.
“The houses, many of them, are ex-estate workers houses, which are right on the road. Any traffic that goes past rattles those houses. To me it is a disgrace that this developer, in this instance, is not being asked to do any sort of traffic calming to stop that.”
The committee had previously voted to refuse the scheme at a meeting in February, but the proposals were brought back as a result of concerns surrounding the previous decision and how it was reached.
Committee members in February had voted to refuse the proposals on the grounds the development would harm “irreplaceable habitats”. But councillors then voted to refer the application to the council’s other planning committee — Planning Committee South — for review, as some members felt there had been a ‘lack of clarity’ on what members were voting on at the time.
But, by voting on the referral calls, the committee had not followed the correct process set out in the council’s constitution. In light of this, the council opted to bring the application back for a fresh hearing.
For further information on the proposals see application reference WD/2024/2955/MAO on the Wealden District Council planning portal.
A disgusting manipulated situation