Planning appeal decision
Land adjacent to Seacox Cockers, The Mount, Flimwell, Ticehurst, East Sussex, TN5 7QP
the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings, together with parking, new access, garden land and landscaping (alternative scheme to RR/2021/2521)
- Authority
- Rother District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Wyborn D
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether or not the development plan would support the proposed housing in this location
- the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including having regard to its location within the High Weald National Landscape
- the effect of the development on the setting and heritage significance of the Grade II Listed Building, Seacox Cockers and Seacox Cottage
- whether or not future occupants of the dwellings would have satisfactory access to services and facilities by a range of transport modes
- whether or not the development would provide a safe and suitable vehicular access to the site, with particular regard to the provision of the visibility splay to the east
What decided it
The combination of unacceptable harm to the High Weald National Landscape, harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed Building, and failure to demonstrate safe and suitable highway access, which together constitute very substantial planning harms that are not outweighed by the moderate benefits of the scheme and conflict with the development plan as a whole.
The moderate benefits of the scheme (housing delivery, economic benefits, biodiversity net gain and reasonable access to services) were outweighed by the very substantial combined harms of conflict with the spatial strategy, substantial harm to the character and appearance of the High Weald National Landscape, less than substantial but meaningful harm to the setting and significance of the Grade II Listed Building, and unacceptable highway safety impacts.
Framework references: 11, 208
Plan policies cited: Policy OSS1, Policy OSS2, Policy OSS3, Policy OSS4, Policy H1, Policy RA2, Policy RA3, Policy EN1, Policy EN2, Policy EN3, Policy PC1, Policy SRM1, Policy TR3, Policy TR4, Policy CO6, Policy DEN1, Policy DEN2, Policy DHG12
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®