80-home outline scheme at Land North Of Green Road, Wivelsfield Green, Haywards Heath

What was proposed

An outline scheme sought up to 80 homes, open space, flexible community space, a new access and associated infrastructure, with only access decided.

“Outline planning application for up to 80 dwellings together with provision of open space, flexible community space, formation of a new access and associated works and all other associated infrastructure, with all matters reserved other than access.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site comprises grazing and arable fields outside the settlement boundary, with mature trees, hedges, a public footpath and nearby listed buildings.

“3 Site Description 3.1 The site comprises an interconnected series of fields which are split between grazing use on the western half of the site and arable use on the eastern part. The pasture area supports a scattered arrangement of mature trees which are distributed throughout.”

“The site falls outside of the settlement boundary but is contiguous with parts of it along its southern edge. The southern part of the site is also positioned between the edges of the eastern and western parts of the village, each of which are in their own self-contained settlement boundaries as defined in the Local Plan. Part of the southern boundary of the site directly flanks the highway on Green Road and is marked by mature trees and hedgerow.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Three earlier outline applications for housing on the site were refused between 1953 and 1954.

“5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 E/53/0199 – Outline application for permission to erect dwellinghouses – Refused 9 th June 1953 E/54/0247 – Outline Application to erect private dwellinghouses – Refused 3 rd…”

“E/63/0508 – Outline for 4 detached dwellings – Refused 1 st July 1954”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to a legal agreement and conditions, considering the benefits would not be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the harms.

“Recommendation: That the application be approved subject to a section 106 legal agreement and conditions as per the details set out in section 10 of this report.”

Officer report

Officers’ main assessment

Officers identified significant landscape harm, limited locational sustainability and lesser heritage, agricultural, built-environment and public-rights-of-way harms.

“The application is accompanied by and Agricultural Land Classification Report which shows that the parts of the site to be built over fall entirely within Grade 3b and, therefore, do not represent Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land. It is noted that Grade 3a land under the ownership of the same landowner as the site would be largely retained for agricultural use.”

“Overall, it is considered harm to public rights of way should carry limited negative weight in the planning balance.”

Officer report

What residents said

Six hundred and fifteen objections cited infrastructure, traffic, landscape, heritage, drainage, ecology and cumulative development, while one letter supported the housing.

“Will change the character of the area dramatically, change from village to town, erode sense of community, robbing residents of the reason they chose to live here – quiet village life; • Loss of greenspace at heart of village and resulting impact on rural character; • Out of rural character of area, would lose visual break; • Not ‘infill’ as dwellings north of Green Road and along Slugwash Lane are mainly large detached properties with significant gardens.”

“Recent appeal decision (APP/P1425/W/24/3351850) notes ‘transition zone’ [from residential to rural] starts at Green Road, not north of it • Contrary to National Planning Policy Framework; • Premature and piecemeal planning – speculative and premature when local plan under review, would undermine strategic planning and community-led development; • Assessments flawed including heritage, landscape, drainage, transport; utilities/services report incorrectly refers to multiple…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from the parish council chair, neighbours, local residents, agents and the ward councillor.

Why the committee refused

The committee refused because the scheme caused substantial landscape harm, was unsustainable and insufficiently protected the setting and significance of Jenners.

“Impact on landscape character on landscape and visual harm. The proposed development by reason of its scale, extent and location within identified sensitive transition zone would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the landscape including erosion of a rural gap between settlement boundaries and harm to the historic parkland setting of Jenners Grade II Listed Building.”

“Harm to the setting of a heritage asset. The proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of historic Jenners building, a non-designated heritage asset through the instruction of housing, associated infrastructure and urbanising features within its historic parkland context.”

Minutes