Appeal 6001032

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages: the first stage (or ‘permission in principle’ stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application, if permission in principle is granted.

The Guidance explains that, in summary, that a decision on whether to grant permission in principle to a site following a valid application must be made in accordance with relevant policies in the development plan unless there are material considerations, such as those in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and national guidance, which indicate otherwise.

The application form specifies the maximum number of dwellings proposed is one and the minimum is one. In effect, one dwelling is proposed and I have considered the proposal accordingly.

On 19 August 2025, the Council adopted the Chichester Local Plan 2021 – 2039 (the Local Plan) and which superseded the Chichester Local Plan 2014 - 2029. The emerging Local Plan (at that time) was referred to in the planning report and the appellant at the appeal stage has made submissions based on the new Local Plan. The appellant has, therefore, been able to comment on the implications of the Local Plan for this appeal and there is accordingly no prejudice in determining the appeal based on the latest development plan policies.

The first reason for refusal explained that in the absence of information to demonstrate water neutrality there would be an adverse effect on the integrity of the Arun Valley Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site. However, on 31 October 2025, Natural England issued a [name] confirming that its [name] of September 2021 had been withdrawn. This means that development within the [name] will no longer be required to demonstrate that it would be water neutral. As a consequence, the Council has confirmed that this addresses the first reason for refusal and I agree.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the [name] and The Mens SAC due to impact on protected bats, • the effect of the proposed location, land use and the amount of development on the character and appearance of the area, and • whether or not the development plan would support the development in this location.

The Guidance states that permission in principle must not be granted for development which is habitats development, and this means development which is likely to have a significant effect on a qualifying European site or a European offshore marine site, as defined in the Framework, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

SACs are European sites protected by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations). The appeal site would be located within 6.5km of the [name] and The Mens SAC. Bats are protected species and are a key reason for designation of these international sites, with The Mens SAC designated for its barbastelle bat maternity roosts and the [name] designated for its barbastelle and Bechstein's bats maternity roosts. In addition to the SACs containing critically important maternity roosting or hibernation sites themselves, due to the highly mobile nature of bats the evidence indicates that it is inevitable that the area of habitats crucial to the maintenance of their populations extends beyond the physical limits of the internationally designated site for which they are an interest feature.

The Local Planning Authority take a precautionary approach and identify two zones within 6.5km and 12km of the SACs. Within the 6.5km zone all impacts to those specified bat species are required to be considered. This includes the direct loss to the SAC itself and also includes the loss or impacts on functionally linked habitats, including roosts, greenfield sites, mature vegetation, woodland, hedgerows and riverine environments suitable for foraging and flight lines.

In this case, the site would be within 6.5km of both SACs and includes open grassland with a front hedge boundary. There are evergreen trees along the eastern boundary and more mixed woodland trees and hedging along the western side. This open paddock, and the one to the south, adjoins and connects with the countryside away from the settlement including woodland and hedged fields. For these reasons, the site is a likely foraging habitat for bats. The application has not been accompanied by detailed ecological surveys and analysis. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude that there would not be an adverse effect on bats associated with the two SACs and therefore an adverse impact on the integrity on one or both of the SACs is possible. It is not allowed as part of the permission in principle first stage to attach conditions to any approval to seek to try to address these issues.

It follows that I am unable to conclude that the proposal, either alone or in combination with other schemes, would not have a likely significant and adverse effect on the integrity of either or both of the [name] and The Mens SAC. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would not meet with the legislative requirements of the Habitats Regulations. The scheme would, therefore, also be in conflict with Policy NE6 of the Local Plan which notably sets the policy requirements when considering internationally and nationally designated habitat sites.

It follows from the above analysis that the scheme would be habitats development and, accordingly, permission in principle must not be granted in these circumstances. However, given the appellant’s comments on this matter and that they are working on the necessary reports to seek to overcome this issue, I consider that it is appropriate to go on and consider the other main issues.

The site lies on the southern side of the [site address] . It is opposite part of the built development which is located within the settlement area to the north of the road. The road provides a clear division between the reasonably closely grouped detached houses in their plots and the much more sporadic development on the southern side of the road. In this latter location, the occasional residential properties are interspersed with sections of field and woodland and the balance falls in favour of a verdant and rural character.

The appeal site is an open paddock with views into the site from the road above the hedge, and through the access. It provides a meaningful sized, open and verdant space between the sporadic buildings and it contributes positively to the rural character of this side of the [site address] .

The indicative layout plan shows one fairly sizeable house and garage within the red lined plot. Even if very well designed and extensively landscaped, especially along the road frontage, the provision of a dwelling with the related garden, and the likely parking and domestic paraphernalia, would be a noticeable change to the character of the site. A residential use would fill much of this open verdant space and would be experienced as an encroachment of built development and related domestic use away from the settlement into open, undeveloped land. It would unduly consolidate the sporadic residential development on this side of the [site address] , and with its position would be visually prominent. However, given the presence of the built form of the settlement in the vicinity, and that the site is framed by the treed surroundings such that there are limited long distance views of countryside beyond the site, the level of harm to the landscape would be to a moderate extent.

I conclude that the effect of residential development of this land, in this location and with the provision of a single dwelling as envisaged, would unduly harm the character and appearance of the area, albeit to a moderate extent. Details and planning conditions at the technical details consent stage would not be able to address this fundamental character change from open grassed paddock to residential plot with the associated encroachment of development into undeveloped and rural land. There would, therefore, be conflict with Policies NE2, NE11 and P2 of the Local Plan, Policy 12 of the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan 2013 to 2029 (the Neighbourhood Plan) and the Framework which amongst other things, requires that development shall be a positive addition to the surrounding area, being integrated within the built environment and landscape.

Policy S2 of the Local Plan sets out the [name] and this ranges from The Sub-Regional Centre (Chichester), through [name], [name], to the “Rest of the Plan area”. Although very close to the settlement boundary with Ifold (a Service Village), the site is located outside any defined settlement boundary in land designated as the Rest of the Plan area. In these circumstances, Policy S2 explains that development is restricted to that which requires a countryside location, or meets an essential local rural need or supports rural diversification in accordance with Policy NE11.

The proposal seeks to erect a single, open market dwelling. Such a proposal would not require a countryside location and would not meet an essential local rural need. The final option to justify the development in this location concerns the requirement to support rural diversification in accordance with Policy NE11.

Policy NE11 of the Local Plan sets the criteria for the consideration of development in the countryside. The site is near a settlement (a Service Village), there is a shop on the other side of the road and it is near two bus stops. However, the bus service is very limited and would not provide a reasonable or sufficiently frequent service on most occasions for occupants to access employment, a mix of retail or other facilities or services. Like most properties along this part of [site address] there is no footpath and occupants would often be required to walk in the road to access the bus stop and other facilities.

Cycling to services and facilities, such as medical facilities, a mix of shops and employment, would not be a reasonable endeavour for most people given the likely distances and nature of the rural road network. The result would be that most occupants on most occasions would be dependent on the private vehicle to access services and facilities. Consequently, the site should be considered to have generally poor sustainability credentials in terms of transport options, even taking into account that, as the Framework explains, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Furthermore, there is little detail or practical changes, other than the provision of secure cycle storage, that would demonstrate how the sustainability of the site would or could be enhanced by improving or creating any opportunities to access the site by walking, cycling or public transport, so as to meet the requirements of criterion a of Policy NE11.

I have already found that the effect of a dwelling on this site, even with sympathetic details at the technical details consent stage, would not conserve and enhance the key features and qualities of the rural and landscape character of this countryside setting, thereby failing criterion c of Policy NE11.

While the site may be considered well related to Ifold (a Service Village), the provision of a dwelling would not be complementary to or compatible with its countryside location, and in turn the scheme would fail criterion e of Policy NE11 of the Local Plan.

As a consequence of the above analysis, the scheme would not meet with the requirements of Policy NE11 of the Local Plan and, in turn, for the reasons explained would fail the criteria of Policy S2.

I appreciate that Policy H3 of the Local Plan provides housing allocations for various rural parishes and, specifically, there is an allocation of 25 units for the Plaistow and Ifold Parish. However, the policy explains that suitable sites will be identified either through neighbourhood plans or a subsequent development plan document. This proposal is promoted through neither of those options. In any case, while the site is close to Ifold and its settlement boundary, it does not lie within the Plaistow and Ifold Parish, but within the Loxwood Parish.

There is no housing allocation in Policy H3 for the Loxwood Parish. However, the development approach for this parish is addressed through Policy A15 Loxwood of the Local Plan which identifies Loxwood as a strategic location where the neighbourhood plan is expected to identify sites for 220 dwellings. Criterion 3 of the policy seeks to ensure that the new development is designed and laid out in order to form a sustainable extension to an existing settlement of Loxwood, and is well integrated with neighbouring areas, providing good access to key facilities and sustainable forms of transport. The appeal site is some way from the settlement of Loxwood and, therefore, the proposed dwelling cannot benefit from support from Policy A15 Loxwood of the Local Plan.

The Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan, which appears to predate the Local Plan, sets out the strategy for the location of houses in the Loxwood Parish. This includes housing site allocations within and around the settlement boundary. Outside these areas, Policy 12 of the Neighbourhood Plan addresses development within the rural area and requires that such proposals will be in accordance with Framework paragraph 55 (now paragraphs 83 and 84), the CDC emerging Local Plan (now the adopted Local Plan) and the General Permitted Development Order.

In this case, the appeal site is not isolated and therefore paragraph 84 of the Framework would not apply (in any case, the scheme would not meet any of the circumstances listed). I consider that the overall development plan approach for the provision of new housing to serve the communities of Ifold and Loxwood generally accords with the Framework advice for rural housing where planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services, as set out in paragraph 83 of the Framework. I am not satisfied, in these circumstances, that allowing new housing on an unallocated site which is defined as the Rest of the Plan area/countryside for planning purposes, would accord with the approach of the Framework.

Furthermore, the scheme is not the type promoted under the General Permitted Development Order. For the reasons explained above, the scheme would not comply with the settlement strategy and approach to the location of new housing as set out in Policies S2 and NE11 of the Local Plan. Consequently, there would not be compliance in terms of Policy 12 of the Neighbourhood Plan which sets the local approach to the location of new housing within the rural areas of the Parish of Loxwood.

Additionally, in support of this position the Loxwood Parish Council and the Plaistow and Ifold Parish Council both object on the basis that the scheme is outside the settlement boundary, with both Councils identifying conflict with the development plan approach for the location of housing.

Drawing all these policy matters together, I conclude that the scheme would not accord with the approach to the location of development in the Local Plan or the Neighbourhood Plan. In particular, there would be conflict with Policies S2, NE11 and H3 of the Local Plan, Policies 2 and 12 of the Neighbourhood Plan and the Framework which collectively establish the settlement hierarchy and the approach to the distribution and type of housing across the plan area.

The development would cause moderate but undue harm to the character and appearance of the area and would not comply with the development plan approach to the location of housing. These harms would be such that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. The scheme would also be habitats development and should not be permitted on this basis alone.

On the other hand, the scheme would provide a small but worthwhile boost to housing supply, on a windfall site. It could be constructed by a small builder adding to the offer of housing in the area. There would be economic and social benefits to the area during construction and in subsequent occupation. Given the size of the site, it should be possible to deliver a biodiversity net gain.

In support of the scheme on this site, the appellant has highlighted the land north of [address], which has been allocated for about 10 dwellings. The allocation has been brought forward into the latest Local Plan. Like the appeal site, this allocated site is also on the outer side of the road from the Ifold settlement.

This allocated housing site, however, lies within the Parish of Plaistow and Ifold, unlike the appeal scheme which is within the Parish of Loxwood. Setting that aside, visually the allocated scheme could potentially have a greater impact on the character and appearance of the area than the appeal scheme because of the more intense development of the land. However, this site has been considered through the development plan process and been allocated for development. It is not a windfall site coming forward around the outskirts of the Ifold settlement, such as the appeal site or other land in similar situations.

Development of the allocated land north of [address] site falls within the approach advocated in the Local Plan, and in particular Policy H3, to advance sites through either allocation or a neighbourhood plan. Consequently, its allocation for development through the plan making process does not then justify unallocated land coming forward and for that land to be considered appropriate in policy or in-principle terms. It follows, that there are material and clear planning differences between the acceptability of the allocated site and the appeal site. In these circumstances, I place limited weight on the land north of [address] in support of the appeal proposal.

Considering all the collective benefits of the development, and that with the recent adoption of the Local Plan the Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land, the provision of an additional single unit of accommodation should merit limited weight in favour of approval.

The moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area together with the location outside the settlement boundary on land considered countryside for planning purposes collectively weighs to a substantial extent against the scheme. These harms and related policy conflicts clearly outweigh the benefits of the proposal. The habitats issue, in any case, prevents approval being given.

The scheme should be determined in accordance with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made otherwise. I conclude that the proposed location, land use and the amount of development would not be acceptable based on the harm to the character and appearance of the area and its non-policy compliant location. For these reasons, and that the proposal constitutes habitats development, the appeal should be dismissed.