Greenfield Protection

Update from your Local District Councillor: Christina Coleman March 2025

I have spent considerable time in recent months defending green field sites from inappropriate development. Firstly, on Planning Committee North, where I advocated to refuse a substantial housing development that would have a detrimental impact on irreplaceable habitats such as aquatic ecosystems, veteran trees and ancient woodland. There is considerable pressure from officers to approve such applications, as refusing them could expose Wealden District Council to considerable costs at appeal. Nevertheless, I believe that the fight is worth it to establish a principle about what is acceptable land to build on.

Secondly, I attended the Owlsbury exhibition in Uckfield and visited the site to gather evidence. I remain opposed to the proposal which would destroy precious countryside and see it replaced with an expansive urban environment in an inappropriate location. The proposal would decimate multiple areas of ancient woodland, reducing them to small degraded islands of impoverished habitat. Currently there are a number of threatened species on site including nesting owls, kestrels and kingfishers. If you would like to oppose the proposal, please do respond to the official consultation, but do also share your thoughts via the campaign site: https://sabreowl.com/owlsbury/. As the Planning Portfolio Holder made clear in a recent public meeting, accusations that Wealden District Council is promoting the site are entirely unfounded.

Thirdly, by challenging the appropriateness of individual green field applications, it is possible to question the evidential basis for some of the land that has been deemed suitable for development in the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment SHELAA process. The planning system assumes that economic growth means destroying nature, but we know the opposite to be true. A recent Oxford study showed that nature degradation could cause the UK economy to shrink by an average of 12%. In a rural area like Wealden, this figure is likely to be far greater. We have more ancient woodland than any other district in the country and our natural environment represent a greater proportion of our assets. These contribute significantly to our economy – think of tourism associated with the Ashdown Forest and South Downs National Park, B&Bs, country pubs, wine trails, and Winnie-the-Pooh – all benefitting from thriving natural environments. By protecting nature, we are also protecting local businesses and Wealden’s economy.

Local Plan

Our Local Plan process has been delayed by Labour government’s changes to planning regulations including: a revised NPPF, increased housing target numbers and new policies around plan making. As a result, we need to have an additional Regulation 18 consultation in September 2025; we will move to Regulation 19 by around April 2026; and aim to have the Plan adopted by April 2027.

It is highly likely that the housing numbers proposed in the Plan will be significantly lower than the target set by central government, so we need to gather sufficient evidence to prove to the Planning Inspector, who assesses the Plan, that our number is the right one.

Centralisation under the guise of Devolution.

Just before Christmas, the Labour Government released a White Paper outlining their vision of devolution, asking only the leaders of County Council to respond. The haste with which central government is forcing through seismic changes to local government should be a concern for anyone who cares about genuine democratic representation. The creation of Mega councils was proposed without consultation or engagement with fellow District, Borough, Town and Parish councillors, let alone residents.

While in theory devolution is a good idea – giving greater power to local communities – what is proposed in the White Paper looks more like centralisation and a blatant power-grab. The proposal is to abolish District Councils and create Unitary Authorities, overseen by a Mayoral Combined Authority. Therefore, instead of being represented by your District Council that answers to approximately 160,000 residents (and your ward Councillors who serve around 4,000 residents) you will be represented by a Mayor who presides over more than one and a half million residents. While Labour promised devolution in their election manifesto, they failed to mention that they would abolish District Councils and impose Mayors. Furthermore, they have made it clear that one of the key drivers for removing District Councils is that they want to “back the builders not the blockers” and therefore reduce the ability for communities to have a say over what gets built in their local area.

Indefinite Suspension of Local Elections.

One of the incentives to County Council leaders for embracing the Priority Programme of local government reorganisation is that they are able to request the suspension of local elections – for at least two years – and therefore hold on to power for longer. The Leaders of East Sussex County Council, West Sussex Council and Brighton and Hove, wrote to the Minister, asking to be included in the priority programme. Sussex is one of just six Local Authority areas to be fast tracked in this way. How County Council leaders get to decide our fate seems extraordinary to me. The elections to choose a mayor are likely to take place in 2026, elections for Councillors in 2027 and Wealden District Council will be extinct in 2028.

The UK is already the most centralised country in the democratic world. A single mega-council risks diminishing local representation, with decision making that is remote from the people they should serve.