Three ponds at Hatch Farm Wheatsheaf Enclosure, Milland

Officers supported approval

Officers recommended permission because the development would provide nature-recovery and climate-resilience benefits while conserving landscape character, biodiversity and tranquillity.

“8.Conclusion 8.1 Based on the additional information provided, it is considered that all outstanding matters pertaining to groundwater sensitivity and surface water flood risk have been suitably resolved. The final wording of conditions can be found in Section 9 below. It is considered that the proposed development will provide significant benefits to nature recovery and the climate resilience of the wider Hollycombe Estate.”

“Overall, the proposal would conserve and enhance the South Downs National Park and further its purposes (in accordance with the S.245 duty). 9.Recommendation 9.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out below. 9.2Planning Conditions andReasons Time Limit 1.The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.”

Officer report

Technical matters were addressed

The Environment Agency raised no objection, while the flood authority accepted that remaining drainage details could be secured by condition.

“Full details can be found in the Officer Report to Planning Committee 11 September 2026. 3.Relevant Planning History 3.1 See 11 September 2025 Planning Committee Report. 4.Consultations 4.1 See 11 September 2025 Planning Committee Report. The consultations set out below are those received following the 11 September 2025 Planning Committee meeting.”

“The report concludes that following the successful design and implementation of mitigation measures, including additional investigative works and permitting, the significance of construction and operational effects, and borehole construction/testing on the principal aquifer are assessed as not significant. The Environment Agency agree with the conclusions of this report. On this basis, it is proposed to secure the mitigation recommended in the report by condition.”

Officer report

Supporters addressed members

The planning agent and a representative of the applicant spoke in support of the application.

Members questioned technical details

Members discussed pond depths and connections, groundwater, flooding, infrastructure, pumps, noise, consistency and whether fishing would be allowed.

“Questioned why the application had come before the Committee without full reports and with additional elements that were not part of the original submission. • Members observed that there appeared to be little associated infrastructure and queried whether the Environment Agency (EA) could address groundwater issues. Questions were raised about the energy source for water pumps and the potential noise impact.”

“The southern pond would be the higher of the two ponds, with a controlled circulation pipe between them. The pipe could be manually managed to regulate water levels and the soakaway. • It was noted that abstraction of groundwater through boreholes would fall under the Environment Agency permit process and would be determined by the EA. The aquifer under the application site was not a source protection zone and the sensitivity was related to pollution risk.”

Minutes

Permission could be granted

The committee also authorised refusal if groundwater and flood-risk matters were not resolved, or progress was insufficient, within three months.

“2) That authority be delegated to the Director of Planning to refuse Planning Permission, with appropriate reasons, if matters relating to groundwater and flood risk have not been resolved, or insufficient progress made, within three months of the 11 September Planning Committee meeting.”

Minutes