Appeal 6001574

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 1 dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/0470 and the plan submitted with it.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle (PiP) route has two stages: the first stage (or PiP stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second ‘technical details consent’ stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. Planning permission does not exist unless both are approved. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of considerations for PiP 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 PiP is granted.

[name] applications, the amount of development is expressed as a range. In this case, the application form, and indeed the description of development, confirms the net increase of dwellings being sought is for 1, and my decision above reflects this.

Although not featured in the Council’s decision, Chailey Neighbourhood Development Plan (made 2021) (NP) has been drawn to my attention. As it is part of the development plan, I must have regard to it.

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for a new dwelling, having particular regard to the spatial strategy, its accessibility to local facilities and services and its effect on the character and function of the landscape and countryside.

Located on the southern side of [site address] , the appeal site comprises part of a garden associated with the residential dwelling known as ‘Burchetts’. While the appeal site lies within the parish of [site address] , it does not lie within its defined settlement boundary which is located to the west. [site address] is defined as a ‘Local Village’ within Tier 6 of the Council’s seven tier settlement hierarchy set out in the Lewes District Local Plan Part 2 Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2020) (SADMP).

As such, SADMP Policy DM1 is relevant. This sets out that outside the planning boundaries, the distinctive character and quality of the countryside will be protected and new development will only be permitted where it is consistent with a specific development plan policy or where the need for a countryside location can be demonstrated.

I have not been pointed to any specific policy that would support the provision of a dwelling on the appeal site, nor has a need for a countryside location been shown. This brings the appeal scheme into conflict with SADMP Policy DM1. - Accessibility

The Council assert the appeal site lies around 463 metres (m) from the built-up area of [site address] . This is within a reasonable walking distance and could be reached on foot by the existing continuous footpath that leads to the settlement. However, details of any facilities and services within [site address] have not been drawn to my attention, and my observations on site suggested that these appear limited.

The evidence indicates the site lies around 1.5 miles from Newick, categorized as a ‘[name] in the settlement hierarchy. As a Tier 4 settlement, it is defined in the development plan as a sustainable location (with either a frequent bus or rail service) with a number of key services and facilities that meet many day-to-day needs of their residents and those from the wider rural hinterland. Some employment opportunities are also available.

This distance is not substantial and is served in the most part by a footway that leads from the appeal site to the settlement. This offers an alternative option for sustainable travel, albeit the attractiveness of this would likely be diminished by factors such as its narrow width in places, lack of street lighting and the 50mph speed limit for part of the route.

Bus stops lie almost directly opposite and adjacent to the appeal site entrance. I observed these offer regular bus services between Lewes and Newick. The proximity of these bus stops to the appeal site would offer a genuine alternative to the private car as a means of travel.

As such, it performs reasonably well against the objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which highlights that priority should be given first to pedestrian and cycle movements, and second to access to high quality public transport. It follows that given there are sustainable travel options, it would not be contrary to the expectations of the Framework in this regard. - Character and function

Development along [site address] is primarily ribbon development along its northern side, extending west towards the settlement boundary. On its southern side, development is more sporadic and loose knit, set amongst a verdant and open landscape. This assists in the transition from built form to countryside, although in my judgement it does not play a critical role in protecting the settlements from merging or retaining their individual identities.

The site is not isolated, nor does it encroach into the openness of the countryside. Indeed, surrounded by residential dwellings on either side, it would be perceived, in plan form, as an infill plot, such that it would not adversely affect the grain of the area. Owing to its set back from the roadside, behind a robust belt of established trees and mature vegetation, it would not be prominent from the public realm. Vehicular access to the site from [site address] already exists, such that this element of development would be unlikely to cause any adverse effects as a matter of principle.

The Burchett’s development to the east is described by some interested parties as a sensitive and unique remnant of an historic estate centred around a grand [address] house. No historical significance has been pointed out by the Council. Nevertheless, it appears to me it could be of some local historic interest. It is a largely linear development behind significant mature landscaping, open grounds and boasts estate fencing. I have little evidence to inform my conclusions on the significance of the appeal site on the setting of The Burchett’s development. However, the appeal site is relatively well contained by existing landscaping, such that intervisibility between it and the development to the east would be limited and carefully sited and well-designed development would be unlikely to interrupt views between the sites.

On its eastern side, the appeal boundary does not follow features on the ground. However, it forms part of an existing garden containing domestic structures, and its established use is already residential. In this context, the introduction of a dwelling as a matter of principle, would not appear unduly uncharacteristic, nor would it materially erode openness or an important gap. The site makes only a limited contribution to the character and function of the wider area. Overall, even with the additional dwelling, the area would continue to read as a loose knit residential pattern, thus preserving the prevailing character and function.

Matters of siting and design are capable of being adequately dealt with at the technical details consent (TDC) stage, such that I am satisfied that the principle of developing the site for one dwelling would not undermine the objective of protecting the distinctive character and quality of the countryside and landscape as set out in SADMP Policy DM1 and [name] ENV1 and ENV3. - Conclusions on suitable location

Drawing the above together, I have found that the site is not a suitable location for a new dwelling having regard to the spatial strategy. However, given the availability of sustainable travel options, I find that its accessibility to local facilities and services is reasonable for its context, in line with the expectations of the Framework which seeks to locate dwellings where they minimise the need to travel by private car. Furthermore, I have found that, fundamentally, the site is capable of accommodating one dwelling without harming the character and function of the area.

Conflict with SADMP Policy DM1 has been identified insofar as the need for a countryside location has not been demonstrated. However, this policy is out of date by virtue of the Council’s inability to demonstrate the necessary five-year housing land supply (5YHLS). As such the weight I attach to it is reduced and is a matter that I return to shortly.

As the site is not within a built-up area, it meets the definition of previously developed land (PDL) as defined in the Framework. Consequently, I find the proposal accords with the expectation of Paragraph 89 of the Framework which sets out the use of PDL, and sites that are physically well-related to existing settlements, should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist.

My attention is drawn to an appeal decision1 relating to a PiP for 9 dwellings on land at [address], [site address] that was dismissed in April 2025. This was a scheme much larger in scale and a visually more exposed site. Unlike the appeal before me, harm to the character amounted to a very real appreciation of encroachment into the rural landscape from the road. Furthermore, contrary to the appeal site, it was not PDL. As such, the schemes are not directly comparable and it does not alter my findings on this appeal.

Concerns have been raised that the site could accommodate more than one dwelling. The description of development is clear that the amount is limited to one dwelling. There is nothing before me to suggest future intensification, and indeed further applications would be assessed on their merits. Furthermore, this proposal is unlikely to set a precedent given the unique circumstances including its position between existing dwellings and that the site already accommodates residential structures, which do not appear to be present elsewhere within the Burchetts estate or locale.

A number of other matters have been raised, including loss of privacy, effects on the environment and restrictive covenants. The latter is a civil matter that falls outside of the planning regime, and the other matters would be for TDC stage given the narrow scope of the PiP process.

The Council can only demonstrate 3.02 years supply of housing land, a considerable shortfall on the necessary 5YHLS. An inability to demonstrate a 5YHLS warrants the application of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework, which relates to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 1 APP/P1425/W/24/3354967

In this case it means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

My attention has been drawn to an Interim Policy Statement on [name] (IPSHD) published in 2020. This sets out 8 criteria that the Council use given that they are not able to demonstrate a 5YHLS. It is common ground that the proposal meets 6 of the 8 criteria. Matters in dispute relate to criterion No. 1; the site boundary not being contiguous with an adopted settlement planning boundary and criterion No. 7 which relates to its effect on character and the surrounding rural area.

I have already found that the site is capable of accommodating one dwelling without character harm and countryside encroachment. However, as a matter of fact, the site fails the first criterion. However, the status of the IPSHD is not clear, and noting it is now over 5 years old, this limits the weight I afford it. Furthermore, the purpose of the criterion No. 1 is to ensure the location is sustainable and avoids unsustainable patterns of growth, which I have found, when considered in the round, would not be the case here.

I have found that locationally, the site runs contrary to the spatial strategy of the development plan. However, in circumstances where the Council’s housing delivery policies have acted to restrict the supply of homes, I do not find the site’s position outside of the settlement boundary, and thus at odds with the Council’s spatial strategy, to be decisive to the outcome of this appeal.

Rather, the site is within walking distance of two settlements, one of which has facilities that can support the day-to-day needs of the occupiers of the appeal site and is located very close to bus stops which can offer alternative means of sustainable transport to larger settlements. Thus, overall, its locational harm is limited.

The scheme would positively contribute to boosting housing supply and would bring about some limited economic and social benefits through the temporary construction jobs it would create and help to support local services. Given the housing shortfall, even one dwelling is important and I attribute its provision significant weight.

Bringing the above together, I do not find that the limited harm identified to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The PPG makes clear that conditions cannot be attached to a grant of permission in principle, and its terms may only include the site location, the type and amount of development. [name] is granted by application, the default duration of that permission is 3 years. Applications for TDC must be determined within the duration of the permission granted. Therefore, no conditions have been imposed.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be allowed.