Case Reference: 3270759

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 22 June 2021
by Guy Davies BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 05 July 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/W/21/3270759
Land adjacent to The Spinney, Lagness Road, Runcton PO20 1LD
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Chichester District
Council.
• The application NM/20/01465/FUL, dated 12 June 2020, was refused by notice dated
15 January 2021.
• The development proposed is the erection of 9 no. dwellings with access, landscaping
and associated works.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The appeal is accompanied by a legal agreement under Section 106 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that secures a commuted sum in lieu of
affordable housing, and a financial contribution towards measures to help
mitigate recreational pressure on sites of ecological importance.
3. The Council is satisfied that, subject to the obligation in the legal agreement,
the contribution towards mitigation measures overcomes the potential harm to
the areas of ecological importance and has led it to withdrawing the second
reason for refusal.
4. I comment further on these obligations under other matters.
Background
5. The site lies adjacent to the settlement of Runcton. A small part of the site lies
within the settlement boundary as defined in the Chichester Local Plan Policies
Map with the majority outside but adjoining it. Policy 2 of the Chichester Local
Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (the ‘Local Plan’) sets out the development
strategy and settlement hierarchy for the District. The strategy is to
concentrate development in the sub-regional centre, settlement hubs or service
villages, of which Runcton is one. Outside these defined settlements
development is restricted to that which requires a countryside location or
meets an essential local rural need or supports rural diversification. As the
proposed development does not fall within any of these categories, it conflicts
with Policy 2.
6. However, the Council acknowledges that, using the methodology set out in the
National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’), there is insufficient
housing land available to meet demand within the District, and the
presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11
of the Framework applies.
7. Pending a review of the Local Plan it has therefore adopted the Interim Policy
Statement for Housing Development, November 2020 (the ‘Interim Policy
Statement’) to guide decision making on proposals for new residential housing.
The Interim Policy Statement does not form part of the development plan, but
it seeks to respond to the current situation by providing additional
opportunities for housing development while retaining key planning principles
and approaches to development. I consider the Interim Policy Statement to be
an appropriate response to the lack of housing land supply, and I therefore
give it weight in determining the appeal.
8. The Interim Policy Statement sets out 13 criteria by which to assess residential
proposals. The Council has raised concern with regard to criterion 3, which
relates to the actual or perceived coalescence of settlements as well as a
concern about the scheme appearing too dense, which is most closely related
to criterion 9. The Council also makes reference to criteria 2, 4 and 5 in its
appeal statement which relate to scale, efficient use of land and impact on the
surrounding townscape and landscape character, although none of these
feature in the reasons for refusal.
Main Issue
9. Having regard to the Interim Policy Statement, the main issue is considered to
be the effect of the development on the gap between settlements, including the
density of the scheme.
Reasons
10. The site comprises rough ground enclosed by hedging. While it does not appear
to have been used for agricultural purposes for some time, it is undeveloped,
and its character is that of a rural parcel of land that forms part of the
countryside.
11. To the west of Runcton lies the nearby settlement of North Mundham,
connected by the Lagness Road. The appeal site forms part of the land on the
south side of the road which separates the two settlements. The remainder of
the land is made up of two detached dwellings and their outbuildings set in
mature plots, and a further undeveloped parcel of land, before the outskirts of
North Mundham is reached. The north side of the road is open grazing land.
12. Although approximately half of the frontage on the south side of the road is
taken up with the mature gardens of the two detached dwellings, these are
isolated from the settlements by the intervening parcels of undeveloped land.
These, together with the open land on the north side of the road, ensure that
the two settlements are physically and visually separated.
13. Development on the appeal site would erode the sense of separation between
the settlements. It would introduce a built up frontage along Lagness Road
across the width of the appeal site. The proposal was amended at the
application stage to incorporate a landscaped frontage. While this would
certainly be more in character with the area than a wall, the developed nature
of the site would still be apparent in views along the new access drive and the
height and proximity of buildings appearing above the landscaping on the road
frontage.
14. The proposed development on the site would also join the isolated dwellings to
the settlement of Runcton, resulting in unbroken garden frontages along
approximately three quarters of the south side of Lagness Road between the
two settlements. This would reduce the perception of separation between the
the villages. The appellant has characterised the proposal as being an infill
scheme. However, I consider the appeal proposal to be considerably more than
just the development of a gap in an otherwise built up frontage, but rather the
encroachment of a sizeable scheme into what is an important visual break
between settlements.
15. The Council has also criticised the layout for being too dense. In so far as the
scheme makes an efficient use of land I do not raise objection to its density as
a separate issue; rather it is the principle of development on the site that
conflicts with the objective of preventing the actual or perceived coalescence of
settlements.
16. I am conscious that there was a difference of opinion between Planning
Committee members and their officers who advised that, in their view, there
would be no actual or perceived coalescence likely to arise from the
development. For the reasons set out above, I disagree with that advice and
consider that significant harm would be caused to the actual and perceived
separation of settlements, as is considered to be the case by the Planning
Committee.
17. I conclude that the development would noticeably close the gap between the
settlements of Runcton and North Mundham, and would therefore result in their
coalescence causing harm to the character and appearance of the area. It
would as a consequence conflict with criterion 3 of the Interim Policy Statement
and also with policies 47 and 48 of the Local Plan, which require the individual
identity of settlements, actual or perceived, to be maintained and the integrity
of predominantly open and undeveloped land between settlements not be to
undermined. For the reason given above, I do not however consider the
scheme to conflict with policy 33, which addresses various criteria including
density.
Other Matters
18. The appellant has put forward a planning obligation relating to mitigation of
recreational pressures on the Chichester and Langstone, and Pagham Harbour,
Special Protection Areas. While I note the Council and Natural England have no
objection to the development on that basis, given my conclusion on the main
issue I have not needed to carry out an appropriate assessment under the
terms of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
19. The appellant has also put forward an obligation to pay a sum towards the
provision of off-site affordable housing. This responds to a recommendation by
the Council’s Housing Officer. It does not feature as a reason for refusal, nor
have I been provided with any information by the Council as to the need or
policy requirement for such a contribution. However, given my conclusion on
the main issue I have not sought to consider this matter any further.
20. There is extant permission for a dwelling on the easternmost part of the site1.
As this part of the site lies within the settlement boundary of Runcton, different
1 NM/18/00381/FUL and NM/18/01759/FUL.
policy considerations apply to it in contrast to the remainder of the site. It does
not therefore set a precedent for development on the larger part of the site.
21. I acknowledge that the development would be of benefit by increasing the local
housing supply by an additional 9 dwellings. The contribution towards off-site
affordable housing is also a benefit, notwithstanding the lack of justification for
it on the part of the Council.
22. The proposal would accord with the criteria in the Interim Policy Statement
other than criterion 3, although as these are necessary requirements for all
new residential development, compliance with the other criteria is a neutral
consideration in my decision.
Conclusion
23. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that
the appeal be determined in accordance with the development plan unless
material considerations indicate otherwise.
24. In this case the proposed development would conflict with the development
plan when taken as a whole because of the erosion of the gap between
settlements, which would undermine the separate identity of the two villages.
25. Balanced against that harm are the benefits of the scheme, and the material
consideration contained in paragraph 11 of the Framework. Because the
Council’s identified housing supply at 4.3 years is less than the 5 years’ supply
required by national planning policy, albeit only by a small amount, paragraph
11 of the Framework says that permission should be granted unless policies in
the Framework provide a clear reason for refusing the development, or any
adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits.
26. Runcton and North Mundham are among the most closely spaced settlements
in the District of Chichester. It is therefore all the more important that the
limited space between them is protected to ensure their continued separate
identities. Notwithstanding the need for additional housing land, I consider that
in this instance the harm caused by closing the gap between the settlements
would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
27. I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Guy Davies
INSPECTOR