DAY SIX
Start was delayed by 45 minutes as Mr Zac Simons KC was delayed by a late running train. In the interim, the Inspector, Joanna Gilbert, raised some “minor” issues regarding the planning consents due to be agreed later.
Further to an issue on plans to upgrade Cuckfield sewage works, as spotted by Council For Protection Of Rural England’s Michael Brown last night, our KC, Jack Parker, told the Inspector we needed to consider our position and report back later in day. She agreed to this. Further evidence suggested that there is a requirement on Mid Sussex District Council to ensure plant enhancements will be ahead of the growing population.
MSDC Planning Evidence
MSDC planning consultant, Phillipa Jarvis, gave evidence on settlement coalescence, stating that the proposed masterplan would result in an unacceptable merging of settlements. She argued that national planning policy requires development to be sensitively located and that any residual harm must be weighed in the overall planning balance.
Prematurity Argument Revisited
The Inquiry revisited the key prematurity argument — whether granting permission would undermine the emerging District Plan. Ms Jarvis maintained that the National Planning Policy Framework supports a plan-led approach and that the emerging District Plan remains a significant material consideration. She also stated there were no exceptional grounds for the Secretary of State to intervene.
Cross-Examination
During cross-examination, Simons KC, challenged Ms Jarvis’s conclusions and the weight given to landscape impacts and the emerging District Plan. Ms Jarvis accepted that landscape harm would be less than moderate but maintained there would still be residual harm. She reiterated that issues such as housing numbers, spatial strategy and countryside protection should carry significant weight in decision-making.
A notable moment came when Mr Simons indicated that, should the appeal be dismissed, the appellant intends to seek a costs award against the Council, prompting a request for a costs session on the Inquiry’s final day.
Local Objections
The day concluded with evidence from local resident Mark Connell, who argued that the proposed development is neither sustainable nor capable of delivering housing in the short term. Under cross-examination, Mr Simons challenged the clarity and evidential basis of his objections, before again raising concerns about the Council’s approach and the potential for a costs application.
The inquiry continues.