# 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 (years):** 1.4
- **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
- **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, old-balance-wording, old-wording-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **DP3(1): conflict.** cramped overdevelopment almost filling the plot, discordant with well-spaced semis (DL 8-10)
- **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(3) set out with the S4(2)(c) trigger (DL 27-28); clear justification not separately assessed
- **P3: conflict.** rear garden no more than 2 m deep, oppressive enclosure; unsatisfactory living environment for future occupiers (DL 12-14)
- **S4(1): fail.** adverse impacts "would substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" - 2024 wording in the conclusion after the S4 test was set out (DL 27, 29)
- **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** significant weight to the principle of housing delivery with 1.4-year supply, but one unit's benefits "relatively modest" (DL 26)
- **F4: not-engaged.** FRA question raised after the new Framework; not pursued given the harm found (DL 23)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006541
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0239bf78-762f-49ba-8c74-fc54acd5005b

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006541.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.