Fairfield Cottage, Cross in Hand Road, Heathfield

Decision

dismissed, 25 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Thomas Courtney

Authority

Wealden (South East)

Appeal reference

6009517

Application reference

WD/2025/0828/O

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline (access and layout) for two self-build/custom-build dwellings in the side garden of Fairfield Cottage, using an existing access off Herring Lane near the A267

Homes

2

Site context

settlement edge, national landscape

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.44 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

TR6(4), S5(1)(j)

Development plan policies

Wealden Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 SPO10, SPO12, SPO13, Wealden Local Plan 1998 saved TR3

Main issues

highway safety; flood risk

Summary

Two self-build homes in a side garden between Cross-in-Hand and Heathfield, using an existing lane access onto the busy A267. The site met S5(1)(j), with a 3.44-year supply, and was in a reasonably sustainable location, with no flood objection. But westbound visibility of about 80 m, against the 116 m needed for measured 43 mph speeds on a road carrying over 21,000 vehicles a day, meant an unacceptable highway safety impact under TR6(4). That harm substantially outweighed the housing benefits. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Both main parties "were given the opportunity to comment on the implications of the updated national policy" (DL ¶3).
• Visibility. "This remains considerably below the 116m visibility distance identified as necessary having regard to the recorded vehicle speeds on the A267" (DL ¶7). "the fact that a proposal would improve an existing arrangement does not necessarily demonstrate that the resulting arrangement would be safe and suitable" (DL ¶8). "even a relatively small increase in traffic may be harmful where it would rely upon access arrangements that have not been demonstrated to be safe" (DL ¶8).
• Manual for Streets 2. It "does not remove the requirement to undertake a site-specific assessment of highway safety nor does it establish that departures from recommended visibility distances should generally be accepted" (DL ¶9).
• No collisions. "The absence of evidence of recorded collisions does not demonstrate that the remaining deficiency is acceptable" (DL ¶10).
• Highway safety: FAIL. "I therefore conclude that the proposal would give rise to an unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶16).
• Flood risk: PASS (DL ¶20, ¶22).
• S5(1)(j): PASS (DL ¶23).
• The 2024 access test argument. "I agree that the structure of national policy has changed. However, I do not agree that this materially alters the assessment of the appeal. Policy TR3 requires significant adverse impacts on highway safety to be mitigated to an acceptable degree and Policy TR6(4) provides that development proposals should be refused where they would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶28).

Planning balance

S5(1). Substantial weight to two homes (HO7) and moderate weight to self-build (HO1(2)(i)); location and other matters neutral. "the substantial positive weight is overcome by the even more substantial weight I attach to the identified highway safety harm" (DL ¶30). The adverse impacts "would substantially outweigh its benefits" (DL ¶30).

What made the difference

Measured speeds and flows. The appellant improved visibility but could not reach the 116 m needed, and the inspector would not treat MfS2 flexibility or a clean collision record as enough on a fast, busy A-road.

Transferable points

• The 2024 "safe and suitable access" wording has gone, but TR3(1)(c) and TR6(4) together still require unacceptable safety impacts to be refused (DL ¶28).
• Improving a substandard access is not enough if the result is still unsafe for the intensified use (DL ¶8, ¶13).
• An absence of recorded collisions does not show a visibility shortfall is acceptable (DL ¶10).
• A site that passes S5(1)(j) can still fail on TR6(4), a "should be refused" policy, through the S5 balance (DL ¶28–30).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Recorded 85th percentile speeds about 43 mph both ways; A267 flows over 21,000 vehicles per day (DL 10)
• Revised access plan FFC 005 Rev 2 improves visibility from under 50 m to about 80 m westbound; not seen by the highway authority (DL 7-8, 14)
• Appellant argued the 2024 "safe and suitable access" test had been removed; rejected (DL 28)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.