What the Council’s Own Reports Reveal

The planning application for 1,500 homes at Owlsbury Farm, West of Uckfield is now accompanied by three major consultation reports. Together, they paint a deeply troubling picture.

These are not SABRE-OWL’s opinions.
These are the findings of Wealden District Council’s own environmental experts and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA).

Below is what the public needs to know.

---

1. Ancient Woodland is at Severe Risk

The Council’s Arboricultural Officer makes it clear that the development would:

• Encircle, isolate and damage Ancient Woodland
• Use inadequate buffers (should be ~40m, not 15m)
• Cause significant loss of hedgerows that wildlife depends on
• Put key infrastructure — including the proposed SANG — in inappropriate locations next to irreplaceable habitats
• Fail to restore or enhance ecological networks as required by national policy

These issues alone render the plans fundamentally incompatible with the NPPF.

---

2. The Ecological Assessment is Incomplete, Inaccurate, or Missing Key Information

The Ecology Consultation Response (13 Nov 2025) shows that the developer’s ecological studies are not adequate for a planning decision and leave major gaps.

Critical missing or incorrect work includes:

Ancient Woodland

• No proper assessment of encirclement, recreational pressure, lighting, pets, hydrology, or drainage impacts
• Green Infrastructure Plan needs correcting
• Ancient woodland must be removed from the SANG and properly connected to other habitats

Ashdown Forest

• Mitigation strategy still not properly justified
• Air quality impacts not fully assessed

Protected Species

Bats

• Missing maternity surveys
• No lighting strategy to maintain “dark corridors”
• No bat masterplan
• Insufficient data on roosting trees and re-roosting plans

Dormice

• Mitigation unclear and delayed — with an 8-year gap before delivery in some phases
• Natural England licence required

Birds

• Skylark compensation must be delivered at the start, not later

Amphibians

• Only 7 of 50 ponds surveyed
• Naturespace report missing

Reptiles

• No clear long-term habitat creation or management plan

Invertebrates

• No habitat survey undertaken

Invasive species

• No mitigation strategy

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)

• Missing individual tree and hedgerow records
• SANG must be the baseline for the metric — not done
• Long-term phasing over 30 years is not justified and makes early habitat delivery unclear

In simple terms: ecology has not been properly assessed, and wildlife impacts are significantly underestimated.

---

3. Heritage Has Not Been Properly Evaluated

According to the Heritage Review (summary provided):

• Information is inaccurate or inadequate
• Many heritage assets are not assessed at all
• The development would harm a substantial number of heritage assets
• The scheme is not designed in a way that respects historic landscape character

With such gaps, a lawful planning decision cannot be made.

---

4. Flooding and Drainage: The Scheme is Not Proven to Be Safe

The Lead Local Flood Authority raises a formal Objection Due to Insufficient Information.
The drainage strategy does not demonstrate that the development is feasible or safe.

Key issues include:

• Basin locations and sizes don’t work with site levels
• No topographic survey for key outlet points
• Potential clashes with root protection zones for Ancient Woodland
• Some drainage discharge points lie outside the applicant’s control
• Incorrect greenfield runoff calculations
• Missing assessment of downstream flood risk
• Unclear drainage design for sports pitches

The LLFA concludes these matters must be resolved BEFORE planning permission is even considered.

---

5. Pollution, Noise and Light Issues Remain Unresolved

Environment Agency

• Warns of pollution risk to the local aquifer

Environmental Health

• Noise assessment is incomplete
• No lighting layout, despite massive ecological and community impacts

No development of this size should progress with such critical gaps.

---

6. The Overall Picture: A Scheme Not Fit for Approval

Across all three reports, the same message appears again and again:

• Too much missing information
• Incorrect or inadequate assessments
• Major environmental risks
• Serious heritage harm
• A drainage strategy that simply doesn’t work
• Ancient Woodland at unacceptable risk

The Arboricultural Officer summarises the situation clearly: the proposal, as it stands, is not compatible with national or local policy and causes major harm.

---

SABRE’s Position

SABRE strongly believes:

1. This application cannot be approved in its current form.

2. The environmental, heritage and flooding evidence is incomplete and inadequate.

3. Ancient Woodland, irreplaceable habitats and heritage assets must be properly protected.

4. Residents deserve a safe, sustainable, and well-evidenced planning process — not one built on guesswork..

SABRE will continue defending Little Horsted and the surrounding countryside from inappropriate, harmful development.