Planning Objections in the South East

Planning Policy in the South East

The South East contains some of England’s most protected landscapes. The Surrey Hills AONB, the South Downs National Park, the Chilterns AONB, and large areas of Metropolitan Green Belt impose strong restrictions on development and provide powerful policy grounds for objections. Coastal authorities along the Sussex and Hampshire coastline also apply landscape character and design policies that can be deployed effectively against inappropriate proposals. The NPPF provides the overarching national framework, and Local Plans across the region reflect the heightened sensitivity of these designations.

Heritage considerations are prominent across the South East, which has a high density of listed buildings, conservation areas, and historic parks. Many authorities have adopted detailed Character Appraisals and heritage-specific SPDs that provide the evidential basis for effective objections.

Experience in the South East

Planning Voice has prepared objection letters across the South East, including in Horsham, Winchester, Guildford, Buckinghamshire, Mid Sussex, the South Downs National Park, New Forest, Test Valley, West Berkshire, Sevenoaks, Dover, Thanet, Elmbridge, Epsom, Maidstone, Medway, and Wokingham. Our work in the South East has addressed loss of light, heritage harm, overdevelopment, landscape character impact, backland development, and unauthorised changes of use. In each case, we have grounded our objections in the relevant authority’s Local Plan, any applicable SPDs, and the NPPF.

In Horsham, we objected to a retrospective change of use of land for the siting of static and touring caravans in a rural location outside the settlement boundary. Our objection argued that the site was not allocated in the Local Plan, that the development would cause visual intrusion and harm to the rural landscape character, that local schools were oversubscribed and infrastructure constraints had not been assessed, and that allowing development on non-allocated land would undermine the strategic approach of the Local Plan. We engaged Horsham’s Policies 21, 22 and Strategic Policy 43 on traveller accommodation and the countryside protection framework.

In the South Downs National Park, we objected to a proposal for eight shepherd’s huts and staff accommodation outside the settlement boundary. Our objection argued that the proposal represented an unjustified expansion of tourism accommodation that was physically separated from the existing pub, that the huts could operate as standalone holiday lets rather than an organic extension of the hospitality business, and that the development would cause harm to the landscape character and the special qualities of the National Park, contrary to Strategic Policies SD23 and SD25 of the South Downs Local Plan.

In Buckinghamshire, we objected to the erection of a new dwelling within the rear garden of an existing property on a steeply sloping site. Our objection raised severe overlooking from oversized first-floor windows directly facing neighbouring gardens at eye level due to the topography, an overbearing scale and massing that would dominate the skyline when viewed from adjoining properties, and incongruous design out of keeping with the established pattern of development, contrary to Buckinghamshire’s Policy DM35 and Core Policy CP9.

In Winchester, we prepared objections to both a loft conversion within a heritage setting and a new dwelling proposal, raising arguments about the impact of the proposed works on the significance of nearby listed buildings and the character of the conservation area. In Guildford, we objected to a double garage on loss of light grounds, and in the New Forest, we prepared objections to multiple new dwelling proposals, including cases involving variation of conditions where amended schemes introduced new amenity impacts not present in the original consent.

Across Mid Sussex, we have objected to rear extensions and new dwellings on the grounds of loss of light and garage conversions. In Test Valley, we contested a Permission in Principle application for a new dwelling on the grounds of heritage harm and loss of light, engaging conservation area and listed building setting policies.

Getting Started

Send us the application reference and your concerns, and we will assess the case the same day at no cost. Our objections are prepared at a fixed fee (from £250), delivered within three working days, and written by a Chartered Town Planner (MRTPI). There is no obligation to proceed after the initial assessment. Contact us to get started.