Proposal for hundreds of potential new homes at East Sussex village criticised as Lewes District Council urges residents to have say on local plan

A proposal for hundreds of new homes in Ringmer has been criticised as Lewes District Council calls for residents to have their say on the next local plan.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

Lewes District Council wants as many people as possible to submit their views on future development in the district and a consultation is open until February 8, 2024.

Development possibilities for homes in Ringmer have already received criticism from Ringmer Parish Councillor Nick Chaloner, who said the options on the ‘LAA Appendix 5 – Ringmer Parish Site Map’ at planningpolicyconsult.lewes-eastbourne.gov.uk could mean ‘at least 900’ new homes in the village.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Chaloner said: “We’ve been bombarded, as a village, by developers rushing to put up houses. We have a local plan and we’ve already met the number of houses we thought were appropriate for Ringmer.”

Suggested areas for 'potentially deliverable or developable' land in Ringmer (in orange) on the LAA Appendix 5 – Ringmer Parish Site MapSuggested areas for 'potentially deliverable or developable' land in Ringmer (in orange) on the LAA Appendix 5 – Ringmer Parish Site Map
Suggested areas for 'potentially deliverable or developable' land in Ringmer (in orange) on the LAA Appendix 5 – Ringmer Parish Site Map

He is worried that since the proposal for 3,250 houses at East Chiltington (North Barnes Farm) was left out of the latest draft local plan, Ringmer could be expected to ‘soak up’ the remaining homes. He said cancelling the so-called ‘Eton Mess’ could create a ‘Ringmer Mess’ instead.

Mr Chaloner said the idea for these homes does not come with a commitment to the necessary infrastructure, including new schools, a new surgery, shops and road improvements.

“We’ve got little roads here, which are clogged with traffic,” he said, adding that hundreds of new homes would create a ‘car dependent development’ and increase pollution.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He said developers are looking at Ringmer because it is a greenfield site, which is easier to build on than brownfield. He is also concerned that developers driven by profit could produce mostly three to four bedroom houses, which are not affordable to most people.

Dr John Kay, speaking on behalf of CPRE Sussex, called the plan in the consultation ‘entirely developer-led’. He said: “They’ve simply asked developers to submit their ‘wish list’ of sites to develop and that will inevitably produce only sites in the countryside because those are the sites that are an order of magnitude more profitable to the developer.”

Emily O’Brien, Green Party Councillor for Ouse Valley & Ringmer said: “Thanks to our broken planning system, with government housing targets and the five-year review ‘loophole’ allowing developers to ride roughshod over our existing local plan that should have run for 20 years, we have already had an influx of development in Ringmer. This has been forced on us by government planning inspectors against local wishes, and contrary to democratic local planning committee decisions.”

She said: “Ringmer residents will therefore have concerns – as will residents in some other areas – at the number of developers now seeking via the local plan process to expand still further. I strongly urge all residents, whatever their views, to respond to the consultation and have their say.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In its announcement about the consultation, Lewes District Council said: “The draft plans are evidence-led, with information gathered by council officers informing where development, such as new homes, employment space and community facilities is appropriate and where it is not.”

Lewes District Council said the government’s annual housing target for Lewes district is now 602 homes per year, which is double the previous target. But, the council said the evidence gathered so far by the council shows that ‘a maximum of 210 homes a year is deliverable’.