Appeal 6002646

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing farm shop and outbuildings and phased application for the erection of six semi-detached dwellings and one detached self-build dwelling with associated landscaping and infrastructure at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/1153/F, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule at the end of this decision.

The Council has referred to an emerging Local Plan. However, its stage in production is unclear and neither party has sought to rely on it. Furthermore, I have not been provided with any of its relevant policies. For these reasons I do not have regard to it.

As the appeal relates to works that could affect the setting of listed buildings, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the buildings or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess as required by Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The Council have clarified that its decision notice should have referred to the two listed buildings as being [name], not the II* stated. Accompanying the appeal is a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). It does not amend the scheme and goes to the heart of the Council’s second reason for refusal. As such, I have accepted it, noting that no party would be prejudiced as they have been able to make representations on it as part of this appeal process.

Following review of the HIA, the Council clarify that their heritage concerns relate to the impact from the proposed footpath. The main issue below is therefore framed accordingly.

The appeal site falls within the zone of influence of the Ashdown Forest Special Area of Protection (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (referred to collectively as the ‘habitat sites’ hereafter). These are [name] afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended (the Habitats Regulations). Whilst the Council are satisfied that the completed Planning Obligation submitted with this appeal effectively removes the reason for refusal in this regard, as competent authority, I must consider whether the development is likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the site and undertake an Appropriate Assessment.

The Planning Obligation advanced with this appeal seeks to secure mitigation for the habitat sites and the provision of a public footpath linking the appeal site to an existing footpath serving the settlement and its facilities. These are matters that I return to later in my decision.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposal having regard to the spatial strategy within the development plan and its accessibility to local services and facilities; • the effect of the proposed footpath on the setting of designated heritage assets; and • the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the habitat sites.

Wealden District’s strategic approach to development is set out in its Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 (CS). It’s seven tier settlement hierarchy seeks to focus development towards the settlements with the greatest amount and range of employment, community facilities and support services, best served by public transport, to minimise the need to travel by residents.

The appeal site lies in Piltdown, a settlement that falls within the bottom tier of the overarching settlement hierarchy, referred to as ‘other unclassified settlements’. CS Policy WCS6 sets out the Rural Area’s Strategy which includes ‘unclassified settlements’ at the bottom of its four-tier strategy. There is no reliance on unclassified settlements to meet the district’s housing needs within this policy.

Saved Policy GD2 of the Wealden Local Plan 1998 (WLP) sets out that outside the development boundaries, as defined on its proposals map, development will be resisted unless it is in accordance with specific policies in the WLP. This is further bolstered by Saved Policy DC17, which states that housing development will not be allowed outside settlement boundaries, unless it conforms with other policies in the Plan.

There is no defined settlement boundary for Piltdown, which is a rural settlement characterised by ribbon development along [site address] , the A272. For the purposes of applying planning policy, it is therefore in the countryside. The proposal advanced does not accord with any specific policies within the WLP, bringing it into conflict with Policies GD2 and DC17. - Access to local services and facilities

The site is not isolated in that it is located close to an existing farmhouse and is proximate to other sporadic residential development along [site address] .

Piltdown has some local services including a petrol station and its small convenience store, a public house and some employment uses on a trading estate. These facilities would not be capable of meeting all of the day-to-day needs of future occupiers, which would have to be met by travelling further afield.

Evidence indicates that the closest medical practice is in Newick (around 2km away) and access to a wider range of services requires travel to Uckfield, a Tier 3 ‘district centre’ (around 5km away), [name] (around 11km away) a Tier 2 ‘secondary centre’, and beyond. Bus services operate between the district centre of Uckfield and Cuckfield, calling at [name] and Newick, broadly hourly, six days a week from a bus stop around 500 metres from the site, adjacent to the petrol station and its convenience store.

This bus service includes stops close to retail provisions at Ashdown Business Park just 2km away. The Chailey School bus also operates from this bus stop. This could be reached via a footpath proposed to be installed as part of this appeal which would link the appeal site to the existing footpath along the northern side of the road. As such, whilst it would not be lit with streetlights, it would offer a feasible alternative than the private car for occupiers during daylight hours.

Whilst there would likely still be a need, and may well be a preference, for future occupiers to travel by private car to fulfil their day-to-day needs, development would be located within a reasonable walking distance to both public transport opportunities and some limited services. Thus, I find the conflict with CS spatial planning objective SP07 to be more limited in extent. Amongst other things, this objective seeks to reduce the need to travel by car by concentrating development where it most closely relates to public transport opportunities. - Conclusions on suitable location

Drawing the above together, I find that the appeal site is not a suitable location for the proposal having regard to the spatial strategy within the development plan. I also find conflict to a more limited degree in respect of accessibility to local facilities and services. Consequently, the development conflicts with [name] GD2, DC17 and EN1 and CS spatial planning objective SP07. The weight I attach to these policies is a matter I return to later in my decision.

There are two [name] listed buildings located east of the appeal site, intervened by agricultural fields.

The closest is the Barn to the [name] of Moses Farmhouse1, described in its [name] as a building of 5 bays, faced with weather-boarding and with a corrugated iron roof. However, since its listing, it is evident that the barn has been 1 [name]. 1353478 converted and works have included a replacement roof coverage with clay tiles and rooflights and the installation of modern threshing barn fenestration. Nevertheless, its significance derives from its agricultural origins, and its contribution to the setting is, in part, derived from the wider farmstead and courtyard.

Moses Farmhouse2 located further east, is a red brick timber-framed two-storey building with a clay tiled roof and prominent chimney stacks. Its significance derives from its historic and architectural importance from its 15th century origin. The survival of historic ancillary structures within the grounds of the Farmhouse, including the Barn, are important in aiding our understanding of the evolution of farming practices.

There is no intervisibility between the appeal site and the listed buildings. Indeed, it is common ground that there would be no adverse effect from the dwellings on either listed building. However, the Council contend that the proposed footpath, which would extend along the north side of [site address] , would cause harm to their settings.

The proposed footpath is within the extent of the appeal site defined by the red line. At present this comprises grass verge that runs alongside verdant boundaries and extends to the western edge of the access mouth serving the listed Barn, and opposite the existing footpath on the southern side of the highway stopping short of extending immediately in front of either listed building.

The existing access serving the Barn and its wider courtyard, is modern and wide, off a busy main road. Likewise, the access mouth serving the Farmhouse has a wide bound area of hardstanding flanked by modern fencing and gates. Therefore, these features together with the modern highway and its associated infrastructure have already eroded the rural setting of the listed buildings over time. The Council has not clearly articulated the significance of either listed building and their relationship to the road. However, in my judgement the significance of the listed buildings are more closely aligned with the countryside at the rear and each other than the more urbanising development that already exists at the site frontage.

Consequently, I find that the installation of a public footpath would not harmfully erode the wider setting of either listed building. There is no conflict with the statutory presumption under Section 66(1) of the Act, nor have I identified conflict with spatial planning objective SP02 of the CS or the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the objectives of which are to safeguard heritage assets from undue harm.

CS Policy WCS12 seeks to protect Ashdown Forest SPA and SAC by reducing the recreational impact of visitors from new housing development. Additionally, it seeks to reduce associated nitrogen emissions emanating from the increased number of vehicles in its vicinity. Amongst other things, [name] EN1 and EN15 of the WLP seek to pursue sustainable development, through considering location and assessing the effects of proposals on the environment, and to safeguard protected areas, including Ashdown Forest, having regard to their 2 [name]. 1028430 status, securing conditions and/or planning obligations to provide appropriate compensatory measures.

The SAC includes one of the largest continuous blocks of lowland heath in south-east England supporting various species of flora and fauna, including European dry heaths, [name] wet heath and the Great crested newt. The conservation objectives are to ensure the favourable conservation status of its qualifying features including by maintaining and restoring qualifying habitats. The main threat to the SAC relates to air pollution, related to the increase in traffic in its vicinity from visitors.

The evidence before me indicates that both Natural England and the Council are content that this level of development either alone or cumulatively, would not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC regarding air quality, and that no mitigation is necessary. As the competent authority in this appeal, I have no reason to reach a different view. In light of this screening, I am satisfied that a likely significant effect on the SAC can be ruled out.

The SPA status was awarded for its ground nesting birds, including the [name] and [name], its qualifying features. The conservation objectives for the SPA are to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and to ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the [name]. The main threats to the SPA are through development pressures and additional recreational disturbance, resulting in damage and disturbance to the bird’s habitat. The Ashdown Forest SPA is also designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

The proposal would create a net gain of seven dwellings and, in combination with other developments permitted in the area, there would be a likely significant adverse effect on the SPA.

My attention is drawn to the Ashdown Forest SPA Mitigation Zone Background Paper (2019) and the Ashdown Forest SPA Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy Tariff Guidance (2019). These explore a number of ways to identify suitable mitigation zones and set out a strategic approach to mitigation by pooling tariff style contributions made per dwelling towards a range of mitigation and avoidance measures.

The strategy includes the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) to provide an alternative destination for visitors and a programme of [name] and Mitigation (SAMM), as well as monitoring the effectiveness of the SANG already provided. These contributions towards the SANG and SAMM are necessary to mitigate adverse impacts, which would be used towards supporting an alternative recreational destination and thereby relieving pressure from the SPA, an approach supported by Natural England.

A signed and executed Planning Obligation accompanies the appeal, which would secure both the SANG and SAMM mitigation, prior to commencement of each residential phase, in line with the SAMM Strategy Tariff Guidance (2019).

Natural England has been consulted as part of this Appropriate Assessment and is content that the measures secured via the Planning Obligation would mitigate the adverse effects associated with the proposal, and thereby relieve pressure on the SPA. Given their expertise, this attracts substantial weight. As competent authority, I am satisfied that the financial contributions would secure and ensure the delivery of mitigation sufficient to address the harm likely to be caused by the development.

I therefore find that the proposal, subject to mitigation, would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA. Likely significant effects on the SAC have been screened out. It follows that the proposal would not conflict with CS Policy WCS12 or [name] EN1 and EN15, or the Habitat Regulations.

I am mindful that interested parties have raised a number of other matters, including the loss of a local farm shop without adequate justification, the lack of affordable housing and traffic concerns. None of these issues have been raised as matters of concern by the Council in their decision. Without substantive evidence to the contrary, there is no reason for me to reach a different view to the Council on these matters.

The Council refer to three appeals within their administrative area which were all dismissed. Limited details are provided. From what is before me, like this appeal, there were determined at a time when the Council were unable to demonstrate the necessary five-year housing land supply (5YHLS). However, there were distinct differences between them and the appeal before me.

The appeal3 relating to Equestrian menage (sand school), [address], [site address] , Piltdown, sought permission in principle for a detached single storey dwelling and was dismissed in January 2025. However, unlike this scheme, it related to a back land site that also had an urbanising effect and was harmful to the character and appearance of the area, a matter not in dispute here, which also weighed against it.

Linked appeals4 at [name], [address], [site address] , Piltdown are also cited. Both sought full planning permission for four dwellings on two different fields, and both were dismissed in August 2023. In contrast to this appeal before me, Appeal A was set back physically and visually separate from the A272 and it necessitated a new access driveway across an undeveloped field, resulting in landscape harm. Character and appearance harm was also found in respect of Appeal B, which is not the case here. As such, none of the appeals put to me are directly comparable, and they do not alter my findings.

The Council confirm they can only demonstrate a 3.44 year housing land supply, a sizeable shortfall on the necessary 5YHLS. An inability to demonstrate a 5YHLS warrants the application of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework, which relates to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. [name] have found no harm to the habitat sites or to any designated heritage assets, it means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination. 3 APP/C1435/W/24/3340301 4 APP/C1435/W/22/3297438 & 3297916

I have found that locationally, the site runs contrary to the spatial strategy of the CS and the WLP. However, in circumstances where the Council’s housing delivery policies have acted to unduly restrict the supply of homes in an area that has a longstanding housing shortfall, I do not find this to be decisive to the outcome of the appeal. The restrictive policies of the WLP rely on outdated settlement boundaries, and consequently I afford these policies only limited weight.

Furthermore, it is clear from the supporting text at paragraph 3.7 of the CS, that whilst there are countryside constraints to rural areas including other unclassified settlements, this does not necessarily preclude growth, but that it will need to reflect the character and needs of the area. No harm is identified to the character, and it is evident that there is a strong need for housing. The Rural Area’s Strategy at CS Policy WCS6 should also be considered out of date, thus the weight I attach to it is limited, as indeed is the level of conflict I find between it and the proposal. This is particularly so, when considered in the round, the site’s location is within a relatively sustainable location given its rural context, where future occupants would have the opportunity to access local services and facilities by means other than the private car.

The evidence indicates that the former farm shop with its associated car parking is its lawful and established use. Moreover, it is common ground that the appeal site constitutes previously developed land (PDL) as defined in the Framework. The development represents an opportunity to utilise PDL on a site that is physically and reasonably well related to an existing settlement and it has, in line with the expectations of the Framework, sought to exploit the opportunity to make the site more sustainable by improving the scope for access to services and facilities on foot with the provision of a new footpath, appropriately secured by the Planning Obligation. I find this makes an efficient use of an existing resource in accordance with the expectation of CS spatial planning objective SP014 and the Framework. These are matters to which I attach considerable positive weight.

There would also be short term construction stage benefits and longer term economic and social benefits through future occupiers’ contribution towards existing services in Piltdown and other nearby settlements, in accordance with the thrust of Paragraph 83 of the Framework. Environmental benefits in the form of a minimum 10% on-site mandatory biodiversity net gain (BNG) for the majority of the dwellings would also ensue. In comparison to the extant fallback use as a farm shop, in theory there would also be a reduction in vehicular trips which is capable of being a benefit. Collectively, I attribute a modest level of weight to these benefits.

Moreover, this scheme would bring about a moderate but important 7 new homes that could be delivered at pace, providing much needed family housing. I attach substantial weight to the benefit of boosting housing supply, particularly given the extent of the shortfall and its longstanding nature. Therefore, the totality of the benefits are collectively very considerable indeed.

[name] have set out, the adverse effects are limited to the conflict with the spatial strategy set out within the development plan and the more limited conflict with the accessibility of the site to local services and facilities. These conflicts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Accordingly, the proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in WLP Policy EN1, CSLP Policy WCS14 and Paragraph 11 of the Framework.

The Council have suggested a number of conditions. I have considered these in relation to the necessary tests, made changes to some and not imposed all suggested for the reasons set out below.

No reasoned justification has been provided as to why only 18 months should be given to implement the permission. Consequently, I have imposed the standard 3- year time condition (No. 1). For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty, condition No. 2 requires development in accordance with the approved plans.

A site-specific method statement is required to refine the principles set out within the [name], in order to adequately protect existing trees. A condition (No. 3) is necessary and imposed.

In the interests of protecting the environment, details of foul drainage and surface water disposal are required by conditions, No’s 4 and 5.

To protect highway safety, a condition (No. 6) is imposed to require the site access to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. For the same reason, a condition (No. 7) is necessary to ensure that the visibility splays at the access are in place prior to first occupation.

Detailed parking is shown on the approved drawings. The phasing plan suggests that aside from Plot 7, this would be provided within [name]. However, for the avoidance of doubt and to capture the parking for all plots, a condition is imposed (No. 8) to ensure that parking is provided in a timely manner and retained as such. The Phasing Plan should ensure that the turning areas are provided simultaneously and so a separate condition to secure this is not necessary.

It has not been clearly articulated why the submitted Construction Management Plan is inadequate. From what I have read and seen this is appropriate and commensurate for the development proposed. As such, this forms part of Condition 9. This condition also requires development to proceed in accordance with the recommendations set out within the [name]. The suggested condition lacks precision in respect of details to be retained and therefore this element has been removed.

Noting the recommendations around external lighting, the implications and the lack of detail, I have imposed a condition (No. 10) to require details to be agreed of any external lighting outside of private gardens in the interests of protecting the sites ecological value.

Whilst the visualisations indicate a development of red brick and pantiles, there is a lack of clarity regarding finishes and manufacturer details. As such, a condition (No. 11) to require these to be agreed is necessary, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

Limited details of ecological enhancements and soft landscaping are provided. However, I note that BNG requirements will be met on-site and will require a biodiversity gain plan to be approved prior to commencement of development under separate legislation. It has not been shown that the imposition of the Council’s suggested condition is necessary. Therefore, to avoid duplication I have not imposed it. However, I have imposed a condition (No. 12) to secure appropriate soft landscaping and boundary treatments. This is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and to ensure it can be properly established in a timely manner.

The Framework is clear that conditions should not be used to restrict permitted development rights unless there is clear justification for doing so. No such justification has been advanced, and I have not imposed such a condition.

For the reasons I have set out above, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: 01 [name] (Site Location Plan and Existing Block Plan) 03 (Proposed Site Plan) 07 (Plots 1 and 2 - [name]) 08 (Plots 1 and 2 - [name] and 3D) 09 (Plots 3 and 4 - [name]) 10 (Plots 3 and 4 - [name] and 3D Views) 11 (Plots 5 and 6 - [name]) 12 (Plots 5 and 6 - [name] and 3D) 13 (Plot 7 - [name]) 14 (Plot 7 - [name] and 3D Views) 15 (Proposed Block Plan - General Arrangement over [name]) 16 (Proposed Block Plan - [address]) 17 (Proposed Block Plan - Parking and [name]) 18 (Proposed Block Plan - Phasing Plan).

No development shall be commenced until an [name] has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall build upon the [name] and Impact Assessment by Fellgrove (document ref: 2262) and shall include the numbering and detailing of trees, confirming root protection areas, routing of service trenches, overhead services and carriageway positions and any details of no dig techniques along with associated use of geotextiles and an indication of the methodology for necessary ground treatments to deal with compacted areas of soil. Thereafter, the works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall be commenced until full details of the proposed means of foul drainage disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved drainage works shall be completed prior to the completion or occupation of any dwelling on site, whichever is the sooner.

No development shall be commenced until a scheme, including design calculations and construction details, for the disposal of surface water which shall include the provision of a surface water regulation system and storage facility and a timetable for their implementation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented on site in accordance with the approved scheme.

Prior to first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the vehicular access serving the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved drawing number 13104/2102 Rev P1 (contained within the [name] by [name] and [name]: 1304A).

Prior to first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, visibility splays at the vehicular access of 120m to the east and 160m to the west from a setback point of 2.4m from the edge of the carriageway shall be provided on site. The splays shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6m in height and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Prior to first occupation of each dwelling hereby permitted, its associated parking provision as shown on drawing no. 16, shall be provided in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter, those parking spaces shall be retained for the parking of vehicles only.

The development shall proceed in accordance with the recommendations set out within Section 6 of the [name] by Fellgrove, May 2025 and the Construction Management Plan submitted with the application.

Prior to the installation of external lighting, other than in private gardens, full details including height, design, location and intensity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting installation shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the commencement of development above ground level, a schedule of external materials to be used in connection with the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved materials shall be used in the implementation of the development and thereafter so retained.

Prior to first occupation of any phase, details of landscape works shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for that phase. These details shall include: • a full specification of all proposed planting which shall include the quantity, size, species, and positions or density of all trees/shrubs/hedgerows to be planted, how they will be planted and protected and the proposed time of planting. The planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved specification. • boundary treatments; • an implementation programme. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed implementation programme. If, within a period of three years from the date of planting, the specimen is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective, another specimen of the same size and species as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place within the first planting season following the removal, uprooting, destruction or death of the original, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation. End of Conditions Schedule