Hugely unpopular Ringmer housing development turned down

On Wednesday (December 8), Lewes District Council’s planning committee considered an outline application seeking permission to build up to 97 homes on land to the south of Lewes Road and Laughton Road. 

While the scheme had been recommended for approval by officers, the proposals had proven to be highly controversial with local residents (who packed the Kings Church hall in Lewes, where the meeting took place). 

These concerns were put forward by a number of speakers during the meeting, including ward councillors Sean MacLeod (Lib Dem), Johnny Denis and Emily O’Brien (both Green).

Cllr O’Brien said: “As a ward councillor for Ringmer, I cannot tell you how important your decision today will be for our community.  

“As well as the turnout today there have been hundreds of objections, I have also had literally hundreds of personal emails from residents, demonstrating the extraordinary and unprecedented strength of local feeling on this development.

“However my view is neither here nor there for you as a committee. What is important is that your decision is in accordance with planning policy. 

“Having looked long and hard, I am convinced that committee members should have no concerns if they are minded to vote against this as there is ample local and national policy evidence to back up a refusal. 

“This is not a decision that will come back to haunt you at appeal.”

Objections to the proposals covered a wide range of concerns, including fears around infrastructure pressures, the ability of the local road network to cope with additional housing, the impact of development on the local landscape and its conflict with the Ringmer Neighbourhood Plan.

However, a very different view was put forward by the applicants, who sought to stress the officers’ recommendation for approval. 

Speaking at the meeting, Ben Ellis, director of developer Bedford Park Developments, said: “We have listened carefully to the objections made today and through the course of the application, however both ourselves and officers do not believe that those alter the officers’ clear conclusion that the proposals are in fact acceptable.”

He added: “This is an acceptable and sustainable location, we believe. We understand that there are differing views, however we will be providing a significant amount of affordable housing and community benefits and over £1.3m worth of [Community Infrastructure Levy] monies.

“I understand the strategy of objectors to try and group all the schemes together, however, on a personal note I do not believe that the other sites that are currently being proposed in Ringmer have the credentials that ours do and I suspect they may well fail.

“Our scheme, however, will supply housing for young people, young families who wish to make Ringmer their home.”

As an outline scheme, the application was only seeking approval for the principle of the development, with all other matters reserved for a later decision. As a result, officers said the final number of houses could fall short of 97 once more detailed plans come forward.

One reason for this could be that East Sussex Highways have concerns about the impact of additional housing on the junction at Earwig Corner, which have seen major improvement works as part of another housing development.

As the junction works have not yet been completed, East Sussex Highways says it cannot yet model what impact the additional houses will have. Officers said the final number of houses could be reduced as a result of this modelling when a reserved matters application came forward.

Similarly, an assessment of the landscape impact of the development could be tied to conditions and form part of the reserved matters application, officers said.

Objectors took a different approach, however, arguing that the committee could not make an informed decision due to these outstanding issues. 

This view appeared to resonate with many committee members, including its chairman Cllr Sharon Davy (Con).

Cllr Davy said: “There seems to be a thread that is running through this application from many people. I think Cllr [Steve] Saunders does make a good point, not everything is bad. For instance housing that allows young people to stay in a growing village.

“But the thread seems to be going back to this; is this the moment? There seem to be quite a lot of, in non-planning terms, woolly areas.

“I’m not going to suggest for a second that all our villages should not have any development, otherwise they would be dead villages. In 50 years when many of us will be dead ourselves, you want a living village. 

“There is some brownfield site here and I have no hesitation in my passion for building on brownfield sites we should be looking for more brownfield sites throughout our country.

“But this is a thread which is concerning.”

Following debate the scheme was rejected (on a majority decision) on landscape impact grounds and there being insufficient information about the highways impact of the scheme. 

The decision was welcomed with a round of applause from objectors.

Afterwards, Mr MacLeod said: “I am, personally, delighted with the outcome but we must now wait to see if the developer will appeal to the planning inspectorate. I will be watching that very closely, given that our MP promised us all that the inspector would uphold the decision of the committee.”