36 homes at Land to the South of Howard Close, Hailsham

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 36 homes, including 35% affordable housing, with access decided and other matters reserved.

“Proposal The application seeks outline planning permission for up to 36 dwellings, including 35% affordable housing, together with associated access, landscaping, drainage and parking. All matters are reserved except for access.”

Officer report

The site and its constraints

The site is 1.8 hectares of unmanaged greenfield land with trees, priority habitat, a public right of way, drainage constraints and a nearby wastewater works.

“Executive Summary The application seeks outline planning permission for up to 36 dwellings (reduced from an original proposal for 43 dwellings) on land to the south of Howard Close, Hailsham, with all matters reserved except access.”

“Site and Surroundings The application site is located on the south-eastern edge of Hailsham and comprises approximately 1.8 hectares of greenfield land to the south of Howard Close. Vehicular access to the site is available from Howard Close to the north, whilst pedestrian access can also be gained from Butts Field to the west.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier applications for up to 140, 44 and 58 homes were withdrawn or refused.

“Relevant Planning History Application No. Description Decision and Date WD/2018/2708/ MAO Erection of up to 140 dwellings and landscaping Withdrawn 18/02/2022 WD/2008/1718/ MAO Erection of 44 dwellings with some matters reserved Refused 28/10/2008 WD/2007/1099/ MAO Development of land for up to 58 dwellings including new access, car parking, and associated landscaping and open space Refused 09/08/2007”

“Further historic data may be found on the Wealden Website. Pre-Application Advice No pre-application advice was sought or undertaken although detailed discussions have been undertaken during the course of the application process.”

Officer report

Why the scale was reduced

The original 43-home scheme was considered cramped and car-dominated, while 36 homes allowed better gardens, parking, layout and natural surveillance.

“The reduction in the number of dwellings to up to 36 provides sufficient flexibility to deliver a layout capable of complying with these design principles at the reserved matters stage. Parking Courtyards The original indicative layout relied heavily on on-street parking and parking courtyards, with relatively few on-plot parking spaces.”

“Excerpts from superseded illustrative layout Furthermore, there were limited opportunities for active surveillance along the PRoW running along the northern boundary of the site. Good design principles recommend that pedestrian routes benefit from continuous natural surveillance to create a safe and secure environment for users.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The Highway Authority and flood authority raised no objection subject to conditions, while Hailsham Town Council objected to access, transport, layout, ecology and policy matters.

“Consultation Responses The following consultation responses and representations have been received. These responses are summarised. Full versions of the consultation responses and representations are available on the case file available on the Council’s website (link above).”

“Lead Local Flood Authority – No objection subject to conditions (Conditions 25 to 29) • Subject to approval of the reserved matters layout the development would appear capable of delivering a drainage package that would support the development.”

Officer report

What local people said

Six objections and a 19-signature petition raised concerns about privacy, parking, wildlife, infrastructure, access, odour, flooding and overdevelopment.

“East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service – Informative If this application receives approval the Developer is required to ensure there is sufficient water for firefighting in accordance with the Water UK National Guidance Document. This is usually achieved by the provision of Fire Hydrant(s) attached to a suitable water main. Early consultation with East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service is recommended to ensure that all needs are met.”

“Concern regarding the rerouting of the Public Right of Way and the potential loss of privacy resulting from this. • Existing infrastructure is already at capacity including GP’s, schools, social care and physical infrastructure such as foul sewage and freshwater provision. • Width of existing roadway into the site is too narrow for two cars to pass. • Concern that emergency services would be unable to access the site or Howard Close due to on street parking.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A neighbour spoke against the application and the agent spoke in favour.

The committee vote

Councillors proposed and seconded a motion to grant permission in line with the officer recommendation, and it carried with the Chair’s casting vote.

“A motion was proposed by Councillors Owen-Williams seconded by Councillor Collins to grant planning permission in line with Officer recommendation. The Chair had the casting vote. This motion was carried.”

Minutes

The final decision

Outline permission was granted subject to a Section 106 agreement, planning conditions and the conditions and informatives in the report and officer update.

“That outline planning permission be granted, subject to the timely completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and the conditions and informatives outlined in the report and the Officer update.”

Minutes