In-depth report on three-day Mornings Mill Farm inquiry
FEELINGS ran high at the Mornings Mill Farm appeal hearing into a planned development of 700 homes on farmland in Willingdon, near the South Downs, which ended this week.
Eastbourne MP Caroline Ansell made an impassioned plea that the proposal at Mornings Mill Farm should be rejected due to the “glory and beauty” of the area.
And many residents and councillors spoke out against the plan, without the support of planning authority Wealden District Council which has withdrawn its objections.
But the barrister representing the landowners was scathing of Wealden’s record on providing affordable housing and said planning permission should have been granted in the first place.
The site, about 130 acres of land with wide views of the South Downs, has been farmed by the Vine family for generations. The scheme includes 700 homes, a medical centre, school, community centre and 8,600 square metres of employment space.
It is a highly controversial proposal which has attracted more than 1,000 objections. This is the second appeal hearing about the scheme.
Background
A first appeal was heard in December 2019 after Wealden District Council refused planning permission.
Planning inspector Louise Phillips rejected the appeal, concluding “…the basic risk to highway safety constitutes an adverse impact of the proposed development which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits…”
Wealden Borough Council again refused the application in 2021 over concerns about highways and transport along with criticism about location and the effects on drainage.
But it did not contest the latest appeal, deciding last month to withdraw. After a meeting behind closed doors, council leader Ann Newton said it was “with a very heavy heart” they had had to withdraw.
“We have taken advice from the very best legal experts who have told us they cannot defend the indefensible,” she said, adding that councillors had to protect public money from being used for legal costs.
Chartered town planner Michael Boniface was appointed to hear the appeal and visited both the site and Butts Brow to see the views before and after the three-day appeal hearing, which ended today.
The MP’s view
Ms Ansell, speaking on the first day of the hearing, suggested that the planning inspector should visit the site by helicopter for an aerial view.
She said: “Only then will you see how this development decimates distinctive characteristics. You would see it in its glory and beauty because it is so, so important to the local community.
“I really must emphasise to you that the fact that the local authorities – district council and parish council – have withdrawn in no way reflects that they support or endorse this application.
“It is the threat of the costs which have had an effect on the democratic process. It is the fear of costs which is letting this application go unchallenged and unchecked.”
In terms of the five-year supply of building land, she said Wealden had given permission to build more than 7,000 homes.
“A development of this kind can only be considered to be premature and speculative. I urge you to support what has been a long democratic process,” adding that authorities had been forced to withdraw due to “towering costs”.
John Litton QC, representing landowners Peter and Robert Vine, asked Ms Ansell three times if it was current Government policy that local authorities could demonstrate a five-year supply of housing sites.
She said the matter had been the subject of heated debate for many years and that both recent Conservative leadership candidates – Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak – recognised that it was “an incredibly blunt tool”.
She told Mr Litton, when he pressed her for a Yes or No as to whether it was Government policy: “You are looking to score a goal in the last minute of extra time.”
Eventually, she conceded that it was current Government policy. “It is correct in the same way that that legislation requires plans which are sustainable, and I don’t believe these are, effective and have positive engagement with local communities.
“I don’t think for a moment you can evidence that. All the calculations are based on faulty and flawed traffic models.” The MP’s address ended with a round of applause from dozens of residents at the hearing at Hellingly Community Hub.
The opposing voices
Several residents and councillors spoke as individuals against the proposal. This classed them as ‘Interested Parties’ and protected them from liability for legal costs.
Ruth Sheppard, a member of Willingdon Residents Association, set up a Facebook group Against Mornings Mill Farm Development in 2019. She said 1,072 objections were received at the appeal that year.
“Those issues are still an issue today. The visual and visceral impact cannot be underestimated,” she said.
Ms Sheppard said the site was less than 1km away from the South Downs National Park and the development would lead to around 1,600 more vehicles trying to get into the traffic flow on the A2270.
Wannock resident Mary Taylor warned of the likely increased risk of flooding as a result of the farm being developed: she had received an Environment Agency letter detailing a new flood warning service for the area.
“Any building that takes place on land which acts as a sponge to available rainfall means the water will back up and the Environment Agency predictions will become a reality,” she said. “We are fighting for environmental wealth not financial gain.”
John Pritchett, chair of Willingdon and Jevington Parish Council but speaking as an individual, said of the farm site: “It is our last green lung between Polegate and Eastbourne.
“The iconic view of the South Downs from Butts Brow to Firle Beacon is at present visible and should not be blighted by development.”
Kim Cole, of BreatheEasy Eastbourne, which supports residents with lung disease and asthma, said the amount of nitrogen dioxide in the air was already twice the World Health Organisation recommendations.
She also said that Department for the Environment monitoring equipment behind Willingdon Trees Community Centre was near open space and half a mile from the A2270 so did not give accurate readings of traffic pollution.
The landowners’ case
Mr Litton, representing the Vine brothers, said Wealden’s remaining policies from a 1998 Local Plan were out of date and the council had agreed that it had breached its own settlement boundaries in granting outline permission for 220 homes in October 2020 near Hailsham in order to meet targets.
“Very great weight should be given to the significant shortfall in the five-year housing supply,” he said.
Five expert witnesses were called for the landowners.
:: Mark Bradbury, a flooding and drainage expert, said the project would not have any detrimental impact on drainage and a range of organisations, including Southern Water, Natural England – the statutory nature conservation body – and Wealden District Council had no objections.
He said the proposed development lies within a low-risk flood zone but that he was awaiting an Environment Agency update. Mr Bradbury said there was plenty of space in which to make adjustments to the development if necessary.
:: Stephen Kirkpatrick spoke about landscaping, saying: “The scheme has been sensitively designed and located alongside the existing urban area to help conserve the distinct landscapes of the district.”
He said housing would be set among “publicly accessible and multi-functional green spaces” and a green space corridor with drainage ditches and water courses would be an important feature.
From the South Downs National Park, the scheme would be seen as “nestling in a horseshoe framework” and would be well integrated into an “existing visual mosaic of buildings and countryside”, according to Mr Kirkpatrick.
The existing views of open fields would be replaced by views of new residential landscape and distant views of the scarp slopes of the Downs.
When questioned by residents further about the views which might be lost, Mr Kirkpatrick said the visuals of the green corridor would vary and that a development that sits at a low level from the national park will become an integral part of the view.
:: Ecology expert Dr Katie Read said the scheme met the requirements of Natural England regarding surface water run-off, with a long-term maintenance and management regime.
She said concerns about foul water entering surface water system due to a lack of capacity in the network were being addressed by Southern Water, which says it is improving the Hailsham South Water Treatment works so the sewerage system is not overloaded.
Asked about biodiversity net gain, measuring the natural environment with the aim of leaving it in a better condition than beforehand, she said the planning conditions required protection of wildlife and the supporting habitat.
Dr Read was questioned at length by Nick Daines, for the Willingdon Residents’ Association, about the possible impact on the Ashdown Forest. She said if she had considered there would be significant impacts on the forest as a result of air pollution, she would have concluded this in her assessment of habitats.
:: Justin Bass, a transport expert, said neither East Sussex County Council nor National Highways, which is responsible for the nearby A27, objected to the application. He said any objections were unfounded and said there were several conditions about highway improvements.
He also suggested that the development could lead to lower car use as Polegate and the mainline railway station were within walking distance of Mornings Mill Farm.
Resident Kevin Lock, in an online call, said he had commuted to London for 20 years and there was no direct train to London Bridge, as Mr Bass had stated in his report.
He asked: “How much of the evidence can we rely on and how much is correct information? A simple Google search would have found this – I am questioning the whole validity of this. Do you fact check?”
Mr Bass said he had checked the relevant timetables. He acknowledged that the A2270 was busy and congested at peak times but “there is nothing unusual in that”.
:: Planning expert Mark Bewsey said Wealden has out-of-date policies and a lack of a five-year housing land supply.
He said: “The local planning authority has failed to deliver the required level of housing and is not capable of meeting future housing need. There is a compelling need for affordable housing in the district.”
He added there were “genuine, tangible benefits” to the open spaces and facilities which would be in the new development.
Cash contribution
A total of 41 planning conditions have been agreed, covering issues including highway details, pedestrian links, a possible new footbridge across the railway line, drainage, ecology and landscaping.
The outstanding condition which has not been agreed is the proportion of affordable housing. Wealden says there must be 65% of market price housing in order to ensure there was funding for the community. This would pay for items such as improving roundabouts on the A22 corridor and contribute to other facilities such as schools, healthcare and libraries.
This means the affordable housing must be set at 35%, argued Wealden. If not, there could be a potential shortfall which could affect road improvements.
Samuel Batchelor, Wealden development manager, said: “It goes to the very heart of us being able to deliver a sustainable development. This scheme would contribute to improvements – it brings certainty and control.”
However, Mr Litton said it was important to be flexible when the scheme came to be built and sold.
He was scathing of Wealden’s record on providing affordable housing, describing it as “dire”.
“It seems counter-intuitive that they [Wealden] are prioritising [contributions] over the ability to provide more than 35% affordable housing when you are in a district where the need is desperate and the authority has been underperforming for a number of years,” he said.
The QC’s closing statement
Mr Litton said that many people speaking against the scheme had relied on objections originally made, knowing that Wealden now knows them to be “indefensible”, and criticised experts without any evidence.
He stated that Wealden District Council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.
The revised application had “fully addressed” road access and safety concerns and have been agreed by East Sussex, said Mr Litton, adding that there was no objection on the basis of drainage and that the scheme was in a low-risk flooding area.
Mr Litton said: “The scales fall heavily in favour of the substantial benefits of the development.”
His parting shot was aimed at Wealden, as he asked for costs against the council.
He told the inspector: “Planning permission should have been granted in the first place. The only reason we are incurring costs is because the council has put the appellant [landowners] to the cost of having an appeal.
“You don’t refuse a planning application simply because there is lots of local opposition. An inquiry is not required to give the public a further opportunity to express their concerns – we should not have been here at all.”
Inspector Michael Boniface concluded the hearing at lunchtime on Thursday. He was due to tour the site and visit Butts Brow later.
:: The inspector’s decision on the appeal and on costs will be announced at a later date.
Comments are welcome but they are pre-moderated
:: If you like my original journalism, please support me so I can keep going
At present There volume of traffic at rush hour at the Polegate lights can add up to 30 minutes to my journey. Traffic speeds down once quiet residential streets in an effort to avoid the slow tail of cars at this junction. I can’t imagine how much worse this we’ll be with up to 1600 cars added into the equation.
The field is regularly deep in water in winter where will this water go to once house are built into this flood plain?
It’s the last bit of green space before the downs and is regularly used by the less able or elderly residents who can’t manage to walk the steep inclines of the downs. I thought the government wanted us ALL to get out and exercise.
If this build goes ahead it will be a loss for the local population ,justice and the environment but a win for yet another band of greedy developers
Oh dear, some of the claims seem to me to defy common sense. For example, I am personally amazed that anyone could believe that development will fulfil biodiversity net gain and say that they are required to protect wildlife and habitat. Sorry I do not think this is remotely possible. At the first sign of the bulldozers most wildlife I reckon will run, fly away or die. I also find it incredible that anyone could even suggest that all these extra houses might lead to lower road use. On the subject of water leaks and sewage. The water company is apparently going to put improvements in place. This in itself seems to be to me an admittance of problems here. Given too the current situation with leaks and use of storm overflows coupled with a probable outdated drainage system, I suspect this would take a very long time. I would ask are they going to priotise Mornings Mill and how would they cope in the meantime. It was said too that It will become an integral part of the view. On this I agree. I consider that this suburban sprawl will indeed become an integral part of the view of a housing estate. I think too that public opinion should not be inconsequential. It would I reckon be very sad if public opinion did not matter in a democracy.
Makes really sad reading, all the evidence is to the contrary of what they state, ‘experts’ do not live here or actually see the reality, ask the residents around the Brodricklands development about flooding !! Over the 8 years I have been in this area the flooding has increased 2 fold , the drains cannot cope , they are either blocked or broken. This area is not known as Eastbourne levels for no reason water has to go somewhere . The Levels are a dynamic landscape which is very young in geological terms. Their formation is dominated by the changing relationship between land and sea. The Levels are very low-lying with local landscape diversity added
by ‘eyes’ – islands of high ground. Both the Eastbourne- Pevensey Levels and Pett and Rye Harbour areas were tidal inlets and in Roman times all land below 4m AOD was submerged at high tide . It is recorded that this area will again be submerged in the near future. Air pollution and damage to the local ecology be damned and as for traffic congestion ! Never have I seen so many queues and traffic jams (worse than in London) not to mention the lack of infrastructure. Our local hospital , Doctors and Dentists are already under amazing pressure how are they supposed to cope? I feel for future generations