Consultation or Greenwash? Esquire’s High Weald Controversy

Esquire Developments’ consultation materials are riddled with misleading claims, ecological contradictions, and empty assurances — none more damaging than their treatment of the High Weald National Landscape, an area protected by law for its scenic beauty, biodiversity, and historic character.

Their documents acknowledge that the site provides habitat for protected species including bats, dormice, reptiles, Great Crested Newts, and birds. Yet recent events on the ground raise serious concerns.

Earlier this year, following discussions with Wealden District Council about garden sizes, contractors acting for Esquire removed a historic boundary hedge — during the nesting season. The area of the field had not changed; only the development boundaries on paper had shifted. The hedge was not obstructing development and its removal served no obvious purpose. Local residents reported the destruction of active bird nests, including red-listed species. While Sussex Police reviewed the matter, no formal action was taken. Nonetheless, the ecological harm appeared evident.

More recently, residents witnessed grassland at the site being cut — during nesting season — in an area previously known to support Skylarks, which are ground-nesting and increasingly rare. Despite local pleas to stop, the cutting continued. The birds have not been seen or heard since. The grass was left to rot in place, raising questions about the purpose of the clearance. Observers argue this was the opposite of conservation.

One local resident who spoke with an Esquire representative at the consultation event recalled being told there had to be a 10% biodiversity uplift — that “they’re not allowed to build without it.” When challenged on how that claim fits with the clearance of wildlife habitats on a greenfield site, the representative reportedly responded that the uplift would be achieved through credits. The resident described this as “meaningless jargon” and “a complete joke to suggest there’ll be any real biodiversity uplift on the site itself.”

There are additional ecological concerns. In one instance, a dormouse surveyor was recorded emptying the contents of survey tubes directly onto the ground — an act that has raised doubts about the methodology and reliability of the ecological assessments being presented.

Despite these issues, Esquire promotes its proposal as “enhancing” the area. One of its flagship features is a synthetic 3G rugby pitch — a surface banned in multiple European countries due to environmental concerns. These pitches shed microplastics into soil and water and require chemical treatment that can harm amphibians, reptiles, and even the roots of nearby trees. The proposed pitch would sit close to known wildlife habitat and within metres of ancient woodland. To describe this as enhancement, many believe, stretches credibility.

Other elements of the proposal reveal a similar credibility gap:

• Public funding: Homes England paid £10 million of public money to a private landowner for one of the site parcels — land previously valued at £87,000 without planning permission. Meanwhile, only £9 million in infrastructure levies will go to Wealden District Council, and neighbouring Tunbridge Wells must bid for a share, despite absorbing much of the development’s impact.

• Schools: The developer claims there is sufficient school capacity. However, Frant Primary had 20 applications for just 15 places this year. Other nearby schools like Langton Green, St Peter’s, and Claremont are also oversubscribed. Most local options are small or faith-based, with limited intake and no serious plan to expand capacity.

• Healthcare: Esquire suggests there is a GP surgery in Frant. In fact, there is not — a longstanding promise that has gone undelivered. Even if space were provided, questions remain about NHS staffing and resourcing.

• Water infrastructure: No plan has been offered to upgrade local infrastructure, despite serious outages in 2022 and ongoing bottled water deliveries to parts of Tunbridge Wells South by South East Water.

• Traffic: The assumption that no junction upgrades are needed is at odds with increasing congestion concerns. The proposed sports complex is likely to generate significantly more vehicle trips, exacerbating pressure on rural roads.

On the rugby relocation, Esquire claims the club has “somewhat outgrown” its current site. However, St Mark’s already provides four senior and six junior pitches plus ample training space — more than what is proposed at Chase Farm.

During Esquire’s most recent exhibition, over 100 residents signed in, with many more attending. Feedback collected at the event indicated widespread concern about the company’s understanding of local planning rules. Multiple Esquire stagg cited the withdrawn Regulation 18 draft plan — which no longer applies and will be restarted. Observers described the consultation as glossy but hollow, and expressed doubts about the developer’s preparedness, credibility, and experience.

A local petition opposing the scheme — now approaching 3,500 signatures — signals a growing loss of public confidence. Many residents feel this developer cannot be trusted: not with wildlife, not with infrastructure, and not with one of Britain’s most treasured landscapes.

For them, this isn’t just about one planning application. It’s about the future of the High Weald. And they’re not buying what’s being sold.