Up to 250 Westham homes have won outline planning permission on land east of Golden Jubilee Way in East Sussex. Inspector Jennifer Wallace allowed the appeal on 13th October 2026, overturning Wealden District Council’s refusal. A new roundabout access and pedestrian and cycle links form part of the proposal.
The decision settles the principle of housing and access, but the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale still need detailed approval. For people living nearby, that means the development has cleared a major hurdle without fixing the final arrangement of streets and buildings.
I would read this as both a housing decision and a warning about how councils defend flood-risk objections. The inspector accepted that flood risk could be managed, subject to safeguards, and separately awarded the appellant part of his appeal costs. That is not a finding that flooding can be ignored.
Why the Westham homes appeal succeeded
The site lies outside the settlement boundary and within the Willingdon Levels recreation policy area. Housing would urbanise land where the development plan encourages outdoor recreation. The inspector therefore found conflict with the development plan. Winning the appeal required other considerations to outweigh that conflict.
However, Wealden could not demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land, and delivery was below the expected level. For Westham homes, the inspector applied the revised national policy framework published in August 2026 and gave substantial weight to meeting evidenced housing needs.
Although the site was outside the settlement, she found it physically well related to it. A pedestrian connection through an arch to Rother Avenue would provide access to buses on Dittons Road and reasonable access to other facilities. Roads, railways and existing development limited the landscape harm.
The Westham homes decision also secures 35% affordable housing through a planning obligation. The inspector gave that provision additional weight. She concluded that the benefits would not be substantially outweighed by adverse effects, allowing permission despite the local-plan conflict.
Flood risk was the central dispute
Wealden’s concern focused on residual tidal flood risk: the risk remaining after flood defences and other protective measures are taken into account. The council argued that, without modelling a breach of coastal defences, the proposal should be assessed as though the defences were absent.
The Environment Agency initially objected but withdrew its objection after a revised flood risk assessment. It had not requested breach modelling of Eastbourne’s coastal defences. The council had not discussed its particular concern with the agency, and the inspector found no substantive evidence explaining why that modelling was necessary in this case.
The latest defended tidal modelling did not show the extreme tidal flood reaching the site. The shoreline management plan intended to maintain the coastal defence line, which protects a substantial urban area. The inspector considered it highly unlikely that those defences would be removed.
For the Westham homes proposal, distance from the coast and warning time also mattered. The inspector accepted that there would not be rapid inundation and that resilience measures and a flood management plan could manage residual risk. These were findings on this evidence and this location, not a general exemption for defended land.
Updated flood mapping showed some Flood Zone 2 and 3 encroachment into the indicative developable area. The inspector nevertheless considered that up to 250 dwellings could be accommodated through the detailed housing mix and layout. The marshland area within those flood zones would remain undeveloped.
What the partial costs award covers
The appellant, Mr Nigel Hobbs, sought a full costs award. The separate decision allows only part of that application, covering expense associated with postponement of the hearing and assessment of residual flood risk.
The inspector criticised the council’s late handling of hearing arrangements. She also found that the council had failed to substantiate its flood-risk reason for refusal. Her costs decision states: “local planning authorities must give cogent reasons for their decisions”.
That distinction is useful for anyone following the Westham homes appeal. A council can disagree with a specialist consultee, but it needs an evidenced explanation. An unsupported disagreement can expose it to costs where it causes unnecessary or wasted appeal expense.
Other aspects did not justify costs. Withdrawing the sequential-test reason early after reviewing the appeal submissions was reasonable case management. It was also reasonable not to progress a legal agreement for an application the council intended to refuse. No cash award is specified: the amount must be agreed or assessed.
Detailed approvals and safeguards still matter
The Westham homes permission contains 22 conditions. Reserved matters must be submitted within three years, and development must begin within two years of approval of the last reserved matters. The inspector rejected the council’s proposed shorter, eighteen-month periods as unreasonable for a scheme of this scale.
For Westham homes, flood safeguards include siting built development in the lowest-risk areas, setting dwelling floors at least 300mm above the relevant design flood level, and retaining flood-flow routes and storage. Detailed sustainable drainage evidence must accompany the reserved matters submission.
Before first occupation, an approved flood management plan must address evacuation, resilience, flooding impacts on the vehicular and northern pedestrian accesses, and safe refuge where evacuation is impossible. If you are assessing the practical implications, those requirements deserve as much attention as the headline permission.
Other conditions address construction, contamination, foul drainage, archaeology, protected species, lighting and long-term landscape management. The inspector found drainage conditions capable of protecting the Pevensey Levels designated habitat. Permission is therefore accompanied by work that must be done before development or occupation can proceed.
Affordable housing, open space and next steps
The planning agreement requires affordable housing to be completed before occupation of 50% of the market housing. Open space must be available before occupation of 75% of the dwellings. The inspector accepted those triggers as allowing a coherent construction programme.
The Westham homes agreement also provides for a custom and self-build delivery and marketing scheme, a travel plan, car-club arrangements, highway works and financial contributions. These include support for bus services and off-site youth and adult space. The inspector found the obligations met the statutory tests.
For neighbours, the next useful documents will be the detailed reserved matters proposals and submissions addressing the conditions. Layout, scale, landscaping and appearance remain open for determination within the outline permission. For a purchaser or developer, I would check the full condition schedule and agreement before assuming when work or occupation can start.
This is an English planning appeal, reference APP/C1435/W/25/3376903, concerning application WD/2022/1927/MAO. Read the full Inspectorate appeal decision and the separate costs decision. Our planning appeals guidance explains the wider process.
0 Comments