Proposals for a major housing development in Uckfield have been refused by Wealden planners.

Wealden District Council’s Planning Committee North considered an outline application seeking permission to build up to 145 homes on land to the north of Eastbourne Road.

While it had been recommended for approval, the scheme had seen objections raised by East Sussex Highways due to concerns around “excessive walking distances” for future residents and “unsuitable cycling routes towards the town centre.”

Highways said these concerns resulted in the site being considered an “unsustainable” location, although Wealden planning officers said this could be addressed through conditions.

However, committee members felt the scheme should not be approved before the necessary improvements were identified.

Cllr Andrew Wilson (Ind), who put forward the motion to refuse, was among those to argue against the scheme. He said: “We’re sitting here talking about 145 houses, many of which are going to … have families in them, putting them on a road which [East Sussex] Highways says is an unsustainable location.

“They are very clear on that. It is an unsustainable location from a highways perspective; there is no ambiguity there. I don’t understand why we can’t sit here and accept that.”

He added: “I just can’t see how we can sit here and approve this with such a glaringly obvious flaw in its location at this time.

“If the road network was improved, if the walking network was improved, if the bus service was more frequent then I might have a different view, but at the moment I’m sitting here very very frustrated that this has come forward at this point.”

Officers had warned against this decision, saying the refusal was unlikely to succeed at appeal.

Development manager Samuel Batchelor said: “An application refused on highways grounds, where our understanding of the concerns raised by [East Sussex County Council are] about the sustainability of the location in relation to cycle movements only, is not one I would feel professionally confident defending on behalf of members.”

Officers also noted that the site has been allocated for development within Wealden’s draft local plan. This was given little weight by committee members, however, who pointed out the consultation responses had yet to be incorporated.

Councillors had also raised concerns about the scheme’s impact on foul drainage, noting how Southern Water had said the additional connections could “lead to an increased risk of foul flooding from the sewer network.”

Officers persuaded the committee not to make this part of the reasons for refusal, however, as any necessary sewerage improvements could be made a mandatory element of the scheme through conditions. This would make a refusal on these grounds “unsustainable”, officers said.

The scheme had also seen a number of objections from neighbours, who argued the homes are unneeded and would put significant pressure on local infrastructure.

As an outline scheme, the application had only been seeking detailed permission for the site’s access, with other details of the proposals requiring further planning permission at a later stage of development. This further planning permission would have covered details such as the scheme’s layout and design.

For further information see application reference WD/2022/2785/MAO on the Wealden District Council website.