Councillors to reconsider Uckfield housing plans

Wealden councillors are set to reconsider proposals for a controversial housing development in Uckfield, as a result of “irregularities” and “confusion” surrounding a previous decision.

On Thursday (March 27), Wealden District Council’s Planning Committee North is set to once again consider outline proposals to build up to 145 homes on land to the north of Eastbourne Road — known locally as the Cysleys Farm scheme.

The committee had previously voted to refuse the scheme at a meeting in February, but is being brought back as a result of concerns surrounding the previous decision and how it was reached.

In a report to the committee, a council planning spokesman said: “In short, it would be difficult for the [council] to cite clearly and precisely the full reasons for refusal, specifying all policies and proposals relevant to the decision taken.”

The spokesman added: “As a result, the committee and its members are asked to consider the item afresh and with an ‘open mind’.

“In doing so, members need to avoid any appearance of bias or of having predetermined their views before taking a decision on the planning application … or on planning policies.”

During the previous debate, councillors had raised a wide variety of concerns about the proposed development.

These concerns coalesced into a motion tabled by Green Party councillor Christina Coleman, who had argued the scheme should be refused on the grounds it would result in harm to “irreplaceable habitats”.

The reasons behind the final vote were muddied, however, with a number of other councillors — including Cllr Kevin Benton (Ind), the motion’s seconder — having suggested additional grounds for refusal. It was unclear whether Cllr Coleman had agreed to include these additional elements as part of the motion to refuse, before it was agreed on a majority vote.

Immediately following the vote to refuse, Labour’s Daniel Manvell called for the decision to be referred for review by the council’s other planning committee — Planning Committee South. Cllr Manvell said he had put forward the call for review as he had concerns about a ‘lack of clarity’ on the reasons given for the refusal.

Councillors then voted on this referral, with the majority agreeing to refer the decision to the other committee. Complicating matters further was the fact the committee — by running a vote — did not follow the correct procedures for a ‘referral in’.

In light of these “irregularities”, council planning officers say the scheme should be brought back for a fresh debate by Planning Committee North.

The application itself is a resubmission of proposals considered and refused by the same committee in November. This previous decision is currently in the early stages of an appeal process, which officers have warned is likely to find in favour of the developer.

Councillors had turned down the November proposals in light of objections raised by East Sussex Highways around “excessive walking distances” for future residents and “unsuitable cycling routes towards the town centre.”

But East Sussex Highways did not replicate its previous objections in response to the resubmitted application. In fact, as Wealden planning officers told the committee in February, the highways authority has made it clear it does ‘not wish to oppose the granting of planning permission … in this instance’.

A wide range of other concerns had been raised by councillors during the November hearing, but (on officer advice) did not form part of the reasons for refusal.

In February, Wealden planning officers had warned this background meant a repeated refusal on either highways grounds or new non-highways grounds could very likely be seen as ‘unreasonable’ by an appeal inspector. This could result in the council being forced to pay considerable costs back to the developer, they warned.

Officers are recommending the resubmitted scheme be approved. Officers have also pointed out how a decision to approve could prevent the appeal from progressing further, therefore preventing the council from facing additional costs.

For further information on the proposals see application reference WD/2024/2955/MAO on the Wealden District Council planning portal.