®Planning appeal decision
Highbrook Fencing, Hammingden Lane, Ardingly, Haywards Heath, RH17 6SS
Planning appeal 3261500 at Highbrook Fencing, Hammingden Lane, Ardingly, Haywards Heath, RH17 6SS (Mid Sussex District Council) was dismissed on 14 October 2021 by Inspector Parker R, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the site is a suitable location for housing, having regard to its accessibility to services and facilities and the development plan.
demolition of existing buildings, removal of plant, machinery and equipment and clearance of the site. Cessation of the use of the site as a sawmill. Erection of four detached dwellings and provision of revised access to the site, with new road and parking
- Authority
- Mid Sussex District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Parker R
- Postcode
- RH17 6SS
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the site is a suitable location for housing, having regard to its accessibility to services and facilities and the development plan
- the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area, with particular reference to the location of the site within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
- whether the scheme under Appeal B includes sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with development plan policy in respect of sustainable design and construction
What decided it
The site's poor accessibility to services and facilities and its location outside any built-up area boundary in a Category 5 settlement, combined with the suburban character of Appeal A conflicting with the rural AONB setting, meant the proposals conflicted with the development plan taken as a whole with no material considerations to justify approval.
The delivery of 4 new homes (Appeal A) and 1 new home (Appeal B) and the redevelopment of previously developed land were outweighed by the poor locational sustainability, reliance on private car use, conflict with development plan spatial strategy and transport objectives, and in Appeal A the visual harm to the character and appearance of the High Weald AONB; the modest social and economic benefits did not overcome the development plan conflict.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy DP12Policy DP15Policy DP6Policy DP21Policy DP16Policy DP39Policy DP17
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 79Paragraph 105Paragraph 15Paragraph 11
- Judgments
- Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2018]
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in Mid Sussex
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021
- Allowed29 October 202660151205, Dexter Drive, East Grinstead, RH19 4SU
- Dismissed22 October 2026601278111 Barnfield, Balcombe, RH17 6FW
- Dismissed9 October 20266010262Development Site At Former Tower Car Sales, Tower Close, East Grinstead, RH19 3BY
- Dismissed9 October 20266005209Lullings Cottage, West Hill, Ardingly, RH17 6QY
- Dismissed9 October 20266005206Lullings Cottage, West Hill, Ardingly, RH17 6QY
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.