Pickles refuses permission for 18 homes in east Sussex neighbourhood planning area

A planning expert said the decision highlighted the importance of neighbourhood planning in the communities secretary's decision making and warned developers of the perils of ignoring emerging or existing neighbourhood planning policies.

Housebuilder MJH Executive Homes applied to Rother District Council in January 2014, seeking planning permission for the construction of 18 homes around an area of open space in Sedlescombe, a village which had been allocated for the delivery of 35 homes in the adopted local development plan. The Council refused permission for the scheme and the developer's subsequent appeal was recovered by the communities secretary due to its potential effects on the emerging Sedlescombe Neighbourhood Plan (NP).

Following a public inquiry in November 2014, planning inspector William Fieldhouse recommended that the appeal be dismissed and permission for the scheme be refused. A decision letter (61-page / 868 KB PDF) issued last week on behalf of the communities secretary said Pickles agreed with the inspector's decision.

The inspector had concluded that conflict of the proposal with the policies of the NP, which had been submitted for examination by the time of the inquiry, should be given only limited weight in the planning balance due to uncertainty as to whether the policies would be considered to be sound.

However, Fieldhouse had noted that "consideration of the issue of prematurity in relation to an emerging plan is an essentially separate exercise to determining what weight should be given to relevant policies". Despite finding that "the evidence before the inquiry does not suggest there are other suitable and deliverable housing sites sufficient to meet the needs of the village", the inspector said allowing the appeal would undermine the neighbourhood planning process by predetermining the locations of more than half of the homes required in the village and building on green space that was important to the local community.

Pickles agreed with the inspector that only limited weight could be given to the policies of the NP, which had been recommended for referendum by the time of the communities secretary's decision. The letter said Pickles agreed that "the NP has reached the stage where prematurity must be considered" and that allowing the appeal "would undermine the NP process by predetermining decisions about the location of housing development that are central to an emerging plan".

Pickles agreed with the inspector that the Council was able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land and that the conflict of the proposals with policies in the local development plan which aimed to prevent new housing outside existing development boundaries weighed against granting permission for the scheme. He also agreed that limited harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the area, further conflicting with local policies.

The communities secretary acknowledged that "the provision of new homes, including affordable housing, would be an important social and economic benefit". However, he dismissed the appeal and refused permission for the scheme.

The government introduced neighbourhood planning in the Localism Act in 2011 and the communities secretary has demonstrated his commitment to preventing development in conflict with adopted and emerging neighbourhood plans in a series of appeal decisions since July 2014.

Planning expert Jamie Lockerbie of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said: "This decision is just the latest in a recent string that demonstrate the importance the communities secretary attaches to neighbourhood planning. Numerous development proposals, both large and small, have been scuppered by a neighbourhood plan, either by conflict with it or through issues of prematurity. Developers who have sites located within areas that have a neighbourhood plan in place, whether adopted or emerging, ignore it at their peril."

The developer, or any other interested party has the right to challenge the decision in the High Court within six weeks.