‘It’s a load of Ballsocks’ signs back in East Sussex village as residents say plan for new houses would spoil area

Deklands Ltd has applied through Kember Loudon Williams to build eight houses on land south of Foords Lane and east of Ballsocks Lane.

The application (WD/2024/0016/F), received by Wealden District Council on January 2, 2024, also proposes 20 new parking spaces and new access and landscaping.

Banners from Vines Cross Community Facebook group are calling it ‘a load of Ballsocks’ and dozens of objection letters have appeared on the application’s page at planning.wealden.gov.uk.

One Vines Cross resident said: “The development is totally out of character with the hamlet of Vines Cross and if allowed would completely change the appearance and rural quality of this area forever.”

But Kember Loudon Williams said there is an ‘urgent need for new housing’ in its supporting planning statement. The statement said: “This proposal relates to an undeveloped area of paddock within the small settlement of Vines Cross.” It said the plan is for eight units (three three-bedroom homes and five four-bedroom homes) and is not a major application.

Objection letters from residents expressed concern that green space and wildlife habitats could be lost, as well as fears of increased light and noise pollution, and increased traffic.

One resident said: “Disturbance during the construction phase will seriously impact the quiet enjoyment of this lovely, rural hamlet by existing residents.”

Another resident said: “Drains and culverts do not drain and if we introduce more concrete the natural ability of the area to absorb the additional water will be lost, with the potential to flood areas in lower Ballsocks lane.”

Seaford barber closes shop after eight years underneath scaffolding

The ‘Ballsocks’ signs first appeared across the village in January 2023 when residents objected to Kember Loudon Williams’ previous plan to build 15 homes in Vines Cross.

Kember Loudon Williams’ recent supporting planning statement acknowledged this plan was refused permission. It said the reasons included: the plan being outside the development boundary, the plan developing land with ‘high landscape sensitivity’ and a layout that ‘did not demonstrate adequate turning and parking’.

But, talking about the new scheme, Kember Loudon Williams’ planning statement said: “The site is defined as greenfield. However, the housing land supply situation within the District justifies a greater obligation to use land efficiently, and across the District in order to meet housing land supply considerations.”

The statement said the plan ‘provides a modest expansion’ to the village, adding that the site is enclosed by vegetation while being outside ‘protected areas’ and the AONB.

It said: “The existing housing, which surrounds the site on a number of sides, means that the proposals would be able to integrate very well with the village.” It added that the buildings have been designed to ‘deliver local vernacular styles’.

It said there would be ‘no external noise sources’ that would impact upon the development and said: “During its operational phase the character of any noise would be compatible with the existing rural area.” It added that noise generated by construction would be temporary.

On the issue of flooding, a Surface Water Drainage Strategy by Monson said: “It is proposed that surface water runoff from the impermeable roof is stored in an attenuation pond and slowly discharged to the existing watercourse to the South using a vortex flow control device (Hydro-Brake or similar).”