Seaford retirement apartments approved at appeal

Plans to build 32 retirement apartments in Seaford have been given the go ahead at appeal.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

In a pair of applications put forward last year, developer Churchill Retirement Living sought permission to build either 36 or 35 retirement apartments in Sutton Road.

Neither scheme — which were both reduced in scale during the application process — made it in front of a planning committee, with the developer launching an appeal on the grounds of non-determination by Lewes District Council.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The council, for its part, said the developer had failed to provide enough information to make its decision. While the council did not make any formal decisions on the scheme, officers confirmed they would have recommended refusal, mainly due to concerns about its impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Proposed housing elevationsProposed housing elevations
Proposed housing elevations

These concerns were partially shared by the planning inspector, who dismissed the appeal on the larger of the two applications (for 33 homes). In doing so, they said the development would have an “unacceptable effect” on the area.

However, they also concluded that the smaller scheme (for 32 homes) would “result in only a limited and localised harm”, which was not enough to warrant refusal when balanced against the district’s housing targets.

In a decision notice published on Monday (December 12), the planning inspector said: “The harm resulting from Appeal B would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the moderate benefits when assessed against the policies in the [National Planning Policy] Framework as a whole.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“Consequently, with respect to Appeal B there are material considerations to warrant a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, Appeal B should therefore be allowed.”

The inspector noted the council only had a land supply position of 2.7 years, which amounted to a ‘significant shortfall’.

In reaching this decision, the inspector took note of local concerns around infrastructure, particularly pressure on GPs practices. However, they did not consider these concerns to be grounds for refusal.

For further information on the proposals see application references LW/21/0660 and LW/21/0967 on the Lewes District Council website.