- Decision
- allowed, 15 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J Bowyer
- Authority
- Wealden (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6008314
- Application reference
- WD/2025/0904/MAJ
- Procedure
- hearing
- Development
- Hybrid - full permission for Aldi foodstore (Class E(a)) with access, parking, servicing and landscaping; outline permission (access only) for a care home (C2)
- Site context
- settlement edge
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing Delivery Test
- 89%
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- AnnexB:settlement, S4, S3, DP3(3), HO7, E1
- Development plan policies
- Wealden Core Strategy 2013 WCS12, Wealden Local Plan 1998 saved EN12, EN27, TR3, CS2
- Main issues
- highway access; character and trees; protected species; BNG; drainage; S4 balance
Summary
A hybrid scheme at Polegate: an Aldi foodstore in full and a care home in outline. Wealden refused it on five grounds. After a hearing the appeal was allowed. The key finding was that a site outside the local-plan development boundary was still within a "settlement" as defined in the 2026 Framework glossary, because it is enclosed by the built-up area, including a consented estate. So S4, not S5, applied. Moderate harm from losing the roadside tree belt came nowhere near substantially outweighing substantial housing-need weight for the care home and significant economic weight.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The Framework was published "very shortly before the Hearing opened. Both main parties confirmed that they were able to address any implications" (DL ¶10).
- Settlement definition: S4 applies. "it is clear from the use of 'includes' that being within an area defined as settlement in the development plan is not a pre-requisite for being a settlement in the terms of the Framework" (DL ¶102). "the appeal site is outside of the Polegate/Willingdon development boundary … However, it adjoins development which is within the boundary to three sides and to the fourth side is recent development following implementation of planning permission at Hindslands … the appeal site would therefore sit within a predominantly built-up area and I find that it would be within a settlement for the purposes of the Framework" (DL ¶103).
- DP3: harm, justified. "there would be clear justification for the conflict with Framework Policy DP3 … On that basis, Policy DP3 (3.) of the Framework does not indicate that development should necessarily be refused" (DL ¶43).
- Care home as housing. "In accordance with Policy H07 of the Framework, I afford substantial weight to the benefit of providing homes which will contribute towards meeting evidenced accommodation needs" (DL ¶106).
- Economic benefit. About 40 FTE jobs: "I afford significant weight to the economic benefits" (DL ¶108).
- S4 balance. "these benefits of the proposal would not in my judgement be close to being substantially outweighed by the adverse effects … Policy S4 of the Framework therefore indicates that development should be approved" (DL ¶110). This outweighed the conflict with the development plan (DL ¶111).
Planning balance
S3/S4 against the development plan. Harm: moderate, localised character harm from tree loss, in conflict with EN12 and EN27, which keep full weight as consistent with the Framework. Benefits: the care home against evidenced need (substantial); jobs and economy (significant); consumer choice (moderate); accessibility improvements (moderate); ecological enhancements (moderate).
What made the difference
Whether the site counted as inside a settlement. By reading Annex B's "includes" as non-exhaustive and counting the consented Hindslands estate as future built-up area, the inspector moved a site outside the development boundary from S5 to S4. S4 is presumptively permissive, with only national decision-making policies (not the local boundary) counting against. Had the site been treated as outside a settlement, S5 would have required it to fit a listed category.
Transferable points
- The Annex B "settlement" definition is not tied to development-plan boundaries. Land surrounded on three sides by built-up area, with an implemented permission on the fourth, is "within a settlement" (DL ¶102-103).
- Under S4, the development-plan boundary conflict is not itself a national-policy adverse effect. The balance is benefits against harms assessed under national decision-making policies (DL ¶101-111).
- DP3(3) harm with "clear justification" (for example, trees removed to provide safe access) does not require refusal (DL ¶43).
- A C2 care home meeting evidenced older-persons need attracts HO7 "substantial weight" (DL ¶106).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AnnexB:settlement | pass | site outside the LP development boundary but enclosed by built-up area on three sides and Hindslands permission on the fourth; "includes" in the definition means a development-plan boundary is not a pre-requisite (DL 102-103) | |
| S4 | pass | benefits "not … close to being substantially outweighed" (DL 110) | |
| DP3(3) | harm | moderate | loss of frontage tree belt for access; clear justification exists, so DP3 does not indicate refusal (DL 43, 104) |
| N2 | neutral | no unacceptable conflict given replacement landscaping (DL 44) | |
| N3 | pass | tree-lined street and long-term maintenance provision (DL 44) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | care home meets evidenced need for older people's accommodation; no 5YHLS; HDT 89% (DL 105-106) |
| TC3 | not-engaged | retail capacity study shows capacity to 2030; increased consumer choice moderate weight (DL 107) | |
| E1 | benefit | significant | about 40 FTE jobs at the store plus care-home jobs (DL 108) |
| EN12, EN27 (Wealden LP) | conflict | localised harm to verdant character from tree loss; policies consistent with the Framework, so full weight (DL 41, 100) |
Key facts
- Outside the development boundary but surrounded by built development, including the new Hindslands estate
- Access needs removal of one Category A tree and many Category B trees along Eastbourne Road
- Council cannot show a 5-year supply; HDT 2025 is 89%
- Wealden Town Centres Study 2026 shows significant retail capacity to 2030
- About 40 FTE store jobs; widened cycle lanes and footway along the frontage
- Emerging local plan would allocate the site for about 60 dwellings (limited weight)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.