# Land off Eastbourne Road, Polegate (Aldi foodstore and care home)

- **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
- **Tags:** settlement-definition, outside-development-boundary, s4-approve, foodstore, care-home, tree-loss, no-5yhls, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **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 weight).** 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 weight).** 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 weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008314
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c0829b9a-737c-4a61-9919-b5a19393a0c8

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008314.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.