292 homes and primary school at London Road, East Hoathly

What was proposed

The hybrid application sought up to 275 homes and a primary school in outline, plus 17 homes in full, with access and supporting infrastructure.

“Proposal The proposal comprises a hybrid planning application seeking: • Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved except for access) for the erection of up to 275 dwellings (including 35% affordable housing) and a two-form entry primary school, together with vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access, public open space including children’s play space, community allotments, sustainable urban drainage systems and associated landscaping; and • Full planning permission…”

Officer report

The site

The three sites are village-edge land comprising a stud farm, agricultural fields, woodland, footpaths, hedgerows and a small field near South Street.

“Site and Surroundings The application site is located within the village of East Hoathly. The submitted documents describe the outline element of the hybrid application as comprising two parcels of land: Tourle’s Farm (referred to as Site A) and London Road (referred to as Site B). The full element of the application is not separately labelled within the submitted plans; however, it adjoins the south-western corner of Site A and lies between that site and South Street.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three members of the public spoke against the application, and the agent spoke in favour.

What members did

Members considered motions to refuse or defer the application, including further discussions with the developer and authorities.

“A motion was proposed by Councillor Owen Williams, seconded by Councillor Benton to refuse hybrid planning permission, contrary to Officer recommendation. This motion was withdrawn.”

“A motion was proposed by Councillor Collins, seconded by Councillor Manvell to defer the application to allow further conversations between the developer and authorities including highways and any other interested parties. This motion was not carried.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee deferred the application to a later meeting so planning officers could ensure the committee would not be legally compromised.

“A motion was proposed under Constitution Section 2.4(c) to defer the meeting to a later date, allowing Planning Officers sufficient time to ensure that the committee would not be legally compromised in making its decision. The motion was carried.”

“That in accordance with the Constitution Section 2.4(c), the application be deferred to a meeting at a later date, allowing Planning Officers sufficient time to ensure that the committee would not be legally compromised in making its decision.”

Minutes