Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed5 February 20263361011

Bantham Farm, London Road, Hurst Green, East Sussex, TN19 7QY

described in the application as: ”Construction of carbon-negative live- work unit, by conversion of existing stable barn and stables to form an eco-home. Addition of landscape and biodiversity enhancements to the wider site, and retention of the existing access

Authority
Rother District Council
Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
other · Minor Dwellings
Inspector
Felgate J

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Appeal A: whether the appeal site is a suitable location for a development of the type now proposed, having regard to the relevant planning policies relating to the location of new housing and its accessibility by sustainable modes of transport; the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the High Weald National Landscape; and whether the proposed new dwelling would be able to provide satisfactory external amenity space for its future occupants.
  • Appeal B: the effects of the development on the character and quality of the High Weald National Landscape; and whether the development would accord with relevant planning policies which seek to limit development in the countryside to that which is necessary.

What decided it

Appeal A: the isolated location in open countryside far from any settlement, combined with poor accessibility by sustainable transport modes, conflicts with fundamental development plan and NPPF policies directing housing to sustainable locations, and this conflict is not outweighed by housing supply shortfall or other benefits. Appeal B: the building causes no discernible impact on the High Weald National Landscape and has been shown to be reasonably necessary for the site's management needs, in accordance with Policy RA3.

Appeal A: the benefits of housing delivery, ecological enhancements and carbon negativity were outweighed by the conflict with development plan policies and key NPPF policies on sustainable locations; the tilted balance did not apply because the proposal conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 84 and 110. Appeal B: no balancing exercise required as the proposal accords with the development plan and causes no material harm.

Framework references: 11, 84, 110, 187, 189

Plan policies cited: Core Strategy Policy OSS1, Core Strategy Policy OSS2, Core Strategy Policy RA2, Core Strategy Policy RA3, Core Strategy Policy TR3, Core Strategy Policy EN1, Core Strategy Policy EN3, Development and Site Allocations Local Plan Policy DIM2, Development and Site Allocations Local Plan Policy DEN2, Development and Site Allocations Local Plan Policy DHG7, Core Strategy Policy OSS4, Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan Policy H1, Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan Policy R1, Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan Policy H5

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.