Category Archives: The Planning Process

Chatsmore Farm appeal dismissed

Posted on by

Yesterday, we delighted to learn that the Planning Inspector had dismissed the appeal by Persimmon Homes against the decision to refuse them planning permission to build a total of 475 new houses at Chatsmore Farm. This is a excellent decision for the local communities of Ferring and Goring on what would have been a very damaging development. So a big thank you to all those people who have submitted their objections, attended demonstrations and fought hard over a number of years. Also well done to Worthing Borough Council who have been forthright in standing up to Persimmon Homes. We now hope that this company give up on the idea of developing this land, and work with local communities to maintain it as a valuable natural habitat.

The decision notice runs to 17 pages, so far too long to replicate here, but below are some relevant short extracts:

Appeal Decision

Inquiry held on 17-18 and 24-26 September 2024 and 1 and 3 October 2024. Site visits made on 16 and 19 September 2024 by Y Wright BSc (Hons) DipTP MSc DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 28th March 2025

Appeal Ref: APP/M3835/W/21/3281813

Land North West of Goring Station, Goring-By-Sea, Worthing

  • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
  • The appeal is made by Persimmon Homes Thames Valley against the decision of Worthing Borough Council.
  • The application Ref AWDM/1264/20, dated 7 August 2020, was refused by notice dated11 March 2021.
  • The development proposed is mixed use development comprising up to 475 dwellings along with associated access, internal roads and footpaths, car parking, public open space, landscaping, local centre (uses including A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1, D2, as proposed to be amended to use classes E, F and Sui Generis) with associated car parking, car parking for the adjacent railway station, undergrounding of overhead HV cables and other supporting infrastructure and utilities.
  • This decision supersedes that issued on 25 February 2022. That decision on the appeal was quashed by order of the High Court dated 1 August 2022.

Decision

  1. The appeal is dismissed.

Main Issues

  1. I consider the main issues are:
  • The effect of the proposed development on the Local Green Gap;
  • The effect of the proposed development on landscape including the setting of the South Downs National Park; and
  • Whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location having regard to other local and national planning policies and the need for housing.

I conclude that the appeal proposal would result in substantial harm to the LGG which would conflict with LP Policy SS5. It would also not accord with LP Policy SS1 on the basis that the development would be outside the BUAB, would not protect this remaining area of countryside and would substantially harm an important gap between settlements.

I conclude that the resultant harm from the proposal to the character and appearance of the local landscape would be substantial and would conflict with LP Policy SS1 which requires gaps and landscapes outside the BUAB to be protected, including those between settlements. It would also be contrary to LP Policy SS4 due to the adverse impact to the character of the area.

I conclude overall that the proposed development would result in moderate to modest harm to the SDNP over the lifetime of the development. Accordingly, this would not accord with LP PoliciesSS1 and SS4 and the Framework in this regard. It would also conflict with the duty in s11A of the 1949 Act, as it would not meet the legislative requirement to seek to further the statutory purposes of the National Park.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. Whilst there would be some benefits to the scheme to which I have afforded weight, these material considerations, when taken together, do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore dismiss the appeal.

The Planning Process

Posted on by

Planning Applications – who does what?

Ferring Conservation Group spends a lot of time monitoring the applications for new housing, commercial development and large extensions or rebuilding where they impinge unfairly on neighbours, the streetscape or countryside. We often ask our members to submit individual objections but we rarely explain how the system works.  Typically which Councils are involved, or what happens when there is an appeal – it is all rather complicated:

The starting point is the law:

Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), planning permission is required for any development of land.  Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) – certain local councils and other bodies – are responsible for examining applications for planning permission and deciding whether to approve or refuse them.

In our case the LPA is Arun District Council. They are required to draw up a Local Plan which must be submitted and endorsed by HM Planning Inspectorate (part of national government). The Local Plan and Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP), where there is one, must be consistent with the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Applications have to be decided as to whether they are consistent with, or a departure from, the Development Plan, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise.

The LPAs are obliged to consult the body responsible for Highways (in our case West Sussex County Council) for their view as to the implications of any development that affects traffic, parking or road safety.

If West Sussex County Council considers that the application would have a severe detrimental effect on the local highway network, that is usually the end of the matter and the application is refused (they rarely do this – usually they just give advice on parking and access).

The LPA must enable the Parish Council to produce a Neighbourhood Development Plan, as we have in Ferring, but this NDP must be consistent with the Local Plan (as above). Arun District Council is obliged to consult Ferring Parish Council on every planning application in the parish area. Unfortunately not all Councils give full consideration to Parish Council views.

This is very much a top-down planning system not the ‘Localism’ that we were promised a few years ago. The Government sets the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Arun DC has to produce a Local Plan that is consistent with it. Also the Parish Council has to produce a Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) which is consistent with the Local Plan. The system has become even more restrictive in recent years because the Government now sets housing-site delivery requirements for each LPA and a rule that each LPA must have a five-year supply of housing land.

The other way that LPAs are weakened is that when the Council have decided to refuse an application, for good and proper reasons, the developer can appeal to the Secretary of State (HM Planning Inspectorate) against that decision. The Government then appoints a Planning Inspector to decide the appeal – and his/her decision is final – it can only be challenged in the High Court (please note that the appeal system allows only the applicant to appeal, not the objectors!).

Where do local residents come in all this?

Well, we elect the Councillors and the whole country elects the Government. We can send Arun DC our objections against the applications we consider unsuitable then the Council ‘takes them into consideration’. Ferring Conservation Group sends in many objections to the applications we feel are unsuitable – we win some and we lose some. The Council may support local objections and refuse authority to develop but then the applicant can appeal to HM Planning Inspectorate who has the final say. But the Inspector’s decision is open to Judical Review, If the High Court rules that the Inspector has made a mistake in law it can quash that decision. This is what happened in the Chatsmore Farm case.

The Council wins some and loses some, and challenges in the High Court are rare and even more rarely successful.

It is a very unsatisfactory system which fails to take into account local democracy.

Ed Miller