Land to the rear of 21 Roselands Avenue, St Philip's Avenue, Eastbourne

Decision

dismissed, 29 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Lynne Evans

Authority

Eastbourne (South East)

Appeal reference

6006541

Application reference

250652

Procedure

written representations

Development

Demolition of a store/garage and erection of a two-storey one-bedroom dwelling

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

1.4 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4(1), P3

Development plan policies

Eastbourne Core Strategy 2013 D10A, D5, Eastbourne Borough Plan 2003 UHT1, UHT4, HO6

Main issues

character and appearance; living conditions of future occupiers; living conditions of neighbours

Summary

A two-storey one-bedroom house replacing a garage on a small plot in a well-spaced suburban street in Eastbourne. The inspector found it cramped and discordant (DP3(1)) and short of usable garden (P3). With a 1.4-year supply, housing got significant weight, but one unit's benefit was modest. Under S4, with DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) set out, the harm outweighed the benefits. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "I have therefore written to seek the views of the Appellant and the Council on the revised Framework as pertinent to this appeal" (DL ¶2).
• Design, DP3(1): CONFLICT. "Given its size in relation to the small dimensions of the plot, the dwelling would appear very cramped and an overdevelopment of the plot" (DL ¶8).
• Future occupiers, P3: CONFLICT. The rear strip "would be very cramped, offering very limited usable amenity space for future residents" (DL ¶13).
• Plan weight. Plan policies "are consistent with the Framework’s position of seeking a high quality of design"; "I attach substantial weight to this conflict" (DL ¶25).
• Housing. "I attach significant weight to the principle of housing delivery ... but the benefits arising from a net addition of one unit would be relatively modest" (DL ¶26).
• DP3(3). "Policy DP3:3 is clear that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of this policy" (DL ¶28).

Planning balance

S4(1) with S4(2)(c) set out (DL ¶27-28). The conclusion uses the 2024 formula: the adverse impacts "would substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of permitting the scheme to proceed" (DL ¶29). The slip is incidental: the S4 test and the DP3(3) trigger are correctly set out and both point to refusal. Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶30).

What made the difference

The plot was too small for a house of this form, leaving a garden under 2 m deep. Even an acute 1.4-year supply could not carry one cramped unit.

Transferable points

• A very small infill plot fails DP3(1) and P3 even with an acute supply shortfall (DL ¶8-14, ¶26).
• Design policies seeking high quality are consistent with the Framework and keep substantial weight (DL ¶25).
• Beware citing ¶29: it concludes in the old "substantially and demonstrably" wording.

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Council supply 1.4 years, undisputed (DL 26)
• Neighbour living conditions acceptable subject to obscure glazing and rooflight conditions (DL 16-22)
• Development plan design policies consistent with the Framework; substantial weight to the conflict (DL 25)
• Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.