Garden community at Land East Of Ansty Way Cuckfield Bypass, Cuckfield

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 1,450 homes, care units, schools, health facilities, shops, employment, sport, open space and three accesses.

“Proposal: Outline planning application (All matters reserved except for access) for the redevelopment of land to the east of Ansty to create a new Garden Community, comprising of the erection of up to 1,450 homes (including 30% affordable housing), up to 90 residential care units (C2 class), a primary school, a SEND school, health hub, sports facilities including all weather hockey pitches and tennis centre, allotments, retail, community and employment uses together with…”

“Purpose of Report 1.1 To consider the recommendation of the Assistant Director for Planning and Sustainable Economy on the application for planning permission as detailed above. Executive Summary 2.1 Outline planning permission is being sought for the proposal, with all matters reserved apart from access.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers found policy conflicts but considered the housing, affordable homes, facilities, transport improvements and other benefits sufficient to justify permission.

“The proposal would provide up to 1,450 new dwellings (including specialist units and self/custom build plots) at a time when the Council cannot demonstrate a five- year housing land supply. There would be economic benefits from the proposal from the increased spend within the local economy once the development is occupied.”

“It is therefore considered that whilst the proposal is not in accordance with the Development Plan when read as a whole, there are material planning considerations of sufficient weight that would justify the approval of this scheme.”

Officer report

What people and consultees said

Objections focused on the unallocated site, countryside, coalescence, traffic, ecology, services, heritage and infrastructure, while several consultees supported approval subject to conditions.

“Residential Amenity Matters - Increased traffic, noise, and activity are expected to affect the tranquillity and character of the area, particularly in quieter lanes and walking routes. - The development would place additional pressure on local services, including schools, healthcare, water supply, and digital infrastructure, which are already experiencing strain.”

“Environment Agency No objection subject to conditions. National Highways No objection subject to condition relating to the preparation of the Construction Traffic Management Plan. Historic England No formal position taken. Suggested to seek views of specialist conservation and archaeological advisers.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Parish councils, a local society, CPRE and a ward member spoke against the application, while two representatives spoke in favour.

What members debated

Members questioned the site’s sustainability, transport, education, landscape, protected landscape, heritage and infrastructure impacts, while one member supported the officer advice.

“Members discussed the impact the application would have on Cuckfield, Ansty and the surrounding areas and understood the concerns of local residents. They noted the difficult position the Council were in, not having a robust District Plan and unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. However, the site was not allocated under the current District Plan and there were far more suitable and sustainable sites.”

“A Member expressed concerns that the main issues of this development would be the impact on the rural landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the coalescence between Ansty and Cuckfield. Noting the development would result in irreversible change as confirmed by the MSDC Visual Landscape Consultant which would be significant and adverse. He also raised concerns regarding the number of heritage assets adjacent to the site.”

Minutes

How members voted

Councillors voted 8–4 for a motion to reject the officer recommendation and refuse the application.

“As there were no further comments, the Chairman sensing the majority of Members were objecting to the recommendations, asked for a proposer and a seconder. Councillor Eves proposed a motion to reject the recommendations and refuse the application, which was seconded by Councillor Berggreen.”

“Following this, the Chairman took Members to a vote on the motion to reject the officer recommendations and refuse the application for the reasons laid out by the Head of Development Management. The motion was proposed by Councillor Eves and seconded by Councillor Berggreen, with 8 votes in favour and 4 against.”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee refused the application because of countryside and landscape harm, coalescence, an unacceptable scale and location, protected landscape impacts and affordable housing concerns.

“It was resolved to reject the officer recommendations and refuse the application for the following reasons;”

“Major development in the countryside and the impact on the rural landscape, the extension of the built-up area of Ansty and coalescence with Cuckfield, loss of trees eroding the rural nature of the site. Unacceptable location scale of the development and urbanizing impact on the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore para 89 of the NPPF is not complied with and the tilted balance is not engaged and does not comply with the Development Plan. 3.”

Minutes