Appeal 6003970

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was submitted in outline form with matters of access and layout for determination now, and matters of appearance, scale and landscaping reserved for later consideration. I have considered the appeal on the same basis and so I have treated any details on the plans relating to the reserved matters indicatively only.

The second reason for refusal on the Council’s decision letter relates to the effect of the proposal on the Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area. However the appellant has completed a planning obligation to secure mitigation for that effect. The Council consider that addresses their concerns and I have no reason to consider otherwise.

In light of the above, the remaining main issues are whether the development is suitably located in respect of the spatial strategy and its effect on the character and appearance of the area including the National Landscape.

The appeal site currently accommodates a detached storage building with a double garage opposite, and a large area of open grassland, which is part of the property at [site address] . The main house at [site address] sits amongst a number of other dwellings with its garden area stretching up to the appeal site boundary. As a result, the existing storage building, and hence also the proposed dwelling, would be set apart from all nearby houses.

[site address] is outside the development boundary for Crowborough, as illustrated in the 1998 Wealden Local Plan (the ‘Local Plan’) and the 2013 Wealden Core Strategy Local Plan (the ‘WCSLP’). The Council advise the site is around 200m from the boundary.

From the Local Plan extract provided in the officer report, it appears that since the time of the adoption of the Local Plan, a considerable number of houses have been built between the appeal site and the settlement boundary, mainly on the land between [site address] and [address]. Although there is plenty of mature vegetation on [address] heading towards the centre of Crowborough which softens the urban character, the volume of building has had the effect of stretching the settlement further towards the site. Nevertheless, the development would still be detached from even these newer additional houses.

A draft Local Plan is being prepared, but is only at Regulation 18 stage so carries little weight. This shows an amended development boundary which includes the new housing built between [site address] and [address], as well as the host dwelling at [site address] . Nonetheless, this boundary is drawn tightly around the existing houses and so, even if it were taken forward and adopted, the appeal site would still be outside, and detached from, the settlement.

The dwelling would effectively replace the existing store. But it would represent an additional and distinct residential unit and would project further into the field in which it sits and be even further from the neighbouring houses.

The Crowborough Army Camp is a large site to the west of the appeal site. I understand it accommodates dormitory style accommodation for new cadets, but that may be used to house asylum seekers. In either event, it is temporary accommodation on a separate site, functionally distinct from permanent dwellings such as that proposed. Moreover the development at the Camp appears to be spread out and detached from the appeal site including by a woodland immediately west of the site and an open field to its rear. Consequently, the proposal would not be seen in the same context as the Camp or the commercial operation further west.

Overall, the dwelling would be significantly detached from the settlement boundary and all other built form. It would therefore not be suitably located and would conflict with Local Plan policies GD2 and DC17 which say development beyond settlement boundaries will be resisted. It would also fail to accord with Local Plan policy EN1 which sets out that the Council will pursue sustainable development having regard to, among other things, the location of development.

The site is within the High Weald National Landscape. The Council’s Landscape Sensitivity Assessment: Residential and Employment Development (2023) identifies that it is within the central part of the High Weald Landscape Character Area. This comprises a rolling landscape of elevated ridges, accommodating a patchwork of fields and woodlands. It adds that the ridge and valley landscape of the area, and the strong rural character and scenic quality are key components of the High Weald National Landscape.

It recognises that the expansion of settlements, like Crowborough, influences the rural character of the area and the sense of tranquillity. However, it states that surrounding woodland contains these effects to relatively localised areas. Overall it concludes that the area, where the appeal site is, is an area of moderate to high sensitivity to small scale housing, such as that proposed in this appeal.

The proposal, by projecting further into the open grassland and further from the existing dwellings than the existing store and by introducing a domestic curtilage, would contrast with the rural character of the existing field and appear prominently from views to the north because of its elevated and isolated position when seen from that direction. It would therefore conflict with the key characteristics of the area and so be harmful to the High Weald National Landscape.

The development would therefore conflict with Local Plan policy EN6 which states that development will only be permitted if it conserves or enhances the natural beauty and character of the landscape. It would also be contrary to objective SPO1 of the WCSLP which aims to protect and enhance the distinct landscapes of the District, particularly those nationally designated.

The Council accept they cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing, stating that the supply is 3.68 years, which is a significant shortfall. In such circumstances paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) states that planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason to refuse the development. It adds that National Landscapes are areas of particular importance. Policy WCS14 of the WCSLP is consistent with this.

Paragraph 189 of the Framework advises that great weight be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes and that development in National Landscapes should be limited. As set out above, the development would fail to conserve the landscape in the High Weald National Landscape, and so the Framework provides a strong reason to refuse the development. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with policies WCS14 and EN1 as set out above and the presumption in favour of sustainable development does therefore not apply.

The appellant identifies that the site is accessible by public transport, so would align with the aims of [name] SPO7 which encourages a reduction in car use. Nonetheless, that would be expected of all development and so does not outweigh the harm to the National Landscape or to the spatial strategy as set out above.

I need not consider the submitted planning obligation as it would only mitigate harm. It could therefore only attract neutral weight in the planning balance so could have no determinative effect on my decision.

The proposal would fail to accord with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.