A planning meeting featuring the AONB

The end of another week and one that saw the November meeting of Planning Committee North (“PCN”) down in Hailsham. This 12 person committee deals with determining planning applications that are either outside the scheme of delegation (ie those that can be determined by planning officers without committee involvement) or those that have been identified by Ward Members (the District Councillors representing the wards in Wealden) as being contentious or where they disagree with a planning officers decision. In both cases, the applications will come before PCN for a debate and determination by the committee.

You can see the agenda for this weeks meeting on Wealden’s website here but I want to focus on one application in particular that has generated a lot of social media traffic post the meeting. This application reference was WD/2024/2055/MAO and concerned an application to demolish an existing residence and build 15 houses on the fields behind the current building. It was significant because the fields where the proposed buildings were going to be sited sit outside the current development boundary for Crowborough and, significantly are located within the High Weald National Landscape (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or “AONB” in legal parlance). Following the representations made during the meeting by public speakers and Councillor Martyn Everitt (one of 3 Local Ward Members for this application, the others Councillors James Partridge, Crowborough North and Rachel Millward, Hartfield did not speak or provide written representations.), I took the view that the planning officers’ report was incorrect and that the application should be refused. It seemed like a very clear cut case to me. I’ll explain why below.

Paragraph 11d and the NPPF

If you spend any time at all looking at planning applications you’ll see references made to the National Planning Policy Framework or “NPPF”. This document outlines a set of rules and principles that should be followed by decision makers (planning officers and committee members) when making planning decisions. I should say at the outset that there is a fair amount of leeway in many parts of the NPPF which can be open to interpretation one way or the other.

As many people will know, Wealden does not currently have a Local Plan in place. There is a draft plan that went through a public consultation period earlier this year but I am skeptical as to whether it will make it much further following the Labour Government’s direction of travel. Indeed, if you’re someone who thinks that Wealden has had too much development recently you’re in for a shock when you read what Labour would like to do. I’ll leave that for another day but here’s a recent post to get you started with some context. So, back to the NPPF. Under certain circumstances a section of the NPPF (which is laid out in paragraph 11d) there is a “presumption in favour of sustainable development” or “tilted balance”. The site in question was also an allocation in the draft local plan but there was no guarantee it would make it into the final version (if we get to a final version).

Specifically it says that “where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

(i) the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed  ; or

(ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”

The important piece for this application is sub paragraph (i) of 11d which disengages the presumption in favour of development if you can demonstrate a policy reason (or reasons) to refuse an application. So is it possible to do that? I argued that it was.

Protecting and conserving the natural environment

Paragraphs 180 to 194 of the NPPF deal with protecting and conserving the natural environment. There are several that deal with protected landscapes (including the AONB).

Paragraph 183 makes clear that “When considering applications for development within National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:

(a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;

(b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and

(c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.

The Planning officer’s report included a fairly generic and pedestrian assessment of “public interest” the wording of which was unexceptional when compared to pretty much every application to build housing in the District.

During the meeting, there was some discussion around what constitutes “major development” and whether paragraph 183 should apply or whether the relevant paragraph should be 182 which requires decision makers to attribute “Great Weight” to “conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.“.

In addition to the NPPF paragraphs we have several saved policies from the Wealden Local Plan which were relevant. Those were policy GD2 (which deals with applications outside development boundaries), DC17 (which deals with applications in the Countryside) and EN6 (which is broadly similar to the paragraphs I mentioned above in the NPPF). There is also the Countryside and Rights of Way Act which says that public bodies have a statutory duty under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CROW Act) 2000, Section 85, which was amended in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This creates a new duty on relevant authorities to “seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area” when discharging their functions in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I’m fairly certain that seeking to further the natural beauty of an area does not include building houses on it.

The AONB also published a revised management plan which includes (for the first time) a dark skies policy. I thought this was relevant in this case at Crowborough sits high in the landscape and is therefore particularly relevant in this regard.

We also had a recent appeal decision on a brownfield site on the edge of Crowborough recently. It was for a smaller quantum of housing but also on the edge of settlement and in the AONB. This was recommended by planning officers for approval. Called into the committee by the Local Member (Michael Lunn, Rotherfield and Hadlow Down) and refused at committee. The applicant appealed and the Inspector dismissed the appeal principally for reasons relating to the AONB.

This site had a previous appeal on it (for 31 houses) and I likened this application to when a child makes a large ask only to settle for something smaller (which is actually what they wanted all along and makes it seem like a compromise). I was not convinced by this new application and we had up to date NPPF policy, an objection from the AONB unit, Wealden saved policies and appeal decisions covering similar issues all weighing in favour of refusal.

How did it go at the vote?

I’ll end by saying all Councillors (regardless of political party) are perfectly entitled to vote whichever way they see fit based on the evidence (and their understanding of the facts). Whether you think they’re representing the community or indeed living up to the promises and “priorities” they lay out when canvassing for your votes is a totally separate issue. This is one data point that those who care about the unique environment we have in Wealden would do well to remember when it comes to the next time you have to put a cross on a ballot paper.

I’ll continue to put thought and effort into representing what I stood for during the May 2023 elections. Voting on my principles and in accordance with the best arguments I can make to benefit the community. Not all housing is bad but there are some cases where common sense doesn’t prevail and I think last Thursday was one of those times.

Please do comment below if you think I made the right (or wrong) decision and please do get in touch if there’s a Wealden related issue I can help you with and you live in Crowborough South East Ward.

If you’re interested to know a little more about Planning then here’s a previous post I wrote to try and explain some of the key bits and pieces.