This is not a previously developed site. It is a new location that was not identified for housing in the 2019 Local Plan.

It is open green land that forms part of the transition between the village of Easebourne and the surrounding countryside.

The Local Plan itself recognises the sensitivity of this site. It requires development to“conserve and enhance the setting of nearby listed buildings” and “protect the site’s relationship with the surrounding landscape”.

The same Local Plan describes Easebourne as an “historic estate village” and identifies“distinctive towns and villages” as one of the South Downs National Park’s special qualities.

That raises a fundamental question. If this landscape is important enough to protect, why is it being allocated for development?

This is not simply 25 homes. It is the extension of development into countryside that currently defines the edge of the village.

It is the movement of Easebourne’s settlement boundary into open land in order to accommodate development.

And it raises a fundamental question about consistency.

In King Edward VII Estate, land which is considered outside the settlement boundary wasnot treated as part of the settlement when assessing development opportunities.

If that approach was correct then, why is a different approach being applied here?

Land outside a settlement boundary cannot be a constraint in one case and then be absorbed into the settlement in another when additional housing numbers are required.

You cannot protect the setting of a historic village by continually pushing its boundaries further into the countryside.Nor can you conserve and enhance village character by steadily eroding the landscape that helps define it.

SDA24 is not simply a housing allocation. It is a decision to extend Easebourne into open countryside.